Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/criticalintroducOOgrayrich 


A  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION 

TO   THE 

OLD  TESTAMENT 


STUDIES  IN  THEOLOGY 


Christianity  and  Ethics. 

Bv  Archibald  B.  D.  Alexander,  M.A.,  D.D. 
The  Environment  of  Early  Christianity. 

By  S.  Angus,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 
History  of  the  Study  of  Theology.    Vol.  I. 

«'  "  "  VoLIL 

By  Dr.  C.  A.  Briggs. 
The  Christian  Hope. 

By  W.  Adams  Brown,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 
Christianity  and  Social  Questions. 

By  William  Cunningham,  F.B.A.,  D.D.,  D.Sc 
The  Justification  of  God. 

By  Rev.  P.  T.  Forsyth. 
Christian  Apologetics. 

By  Rev.  A.  E.  Garvie. 
A  Critical  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament. 

By  George  Buchanan  Gray,  D.D.,  D.Litt. 
Gospel  Origins. 

By  William  West  Holdsworth,  M.A. 
Faith  and  Its  Psychology. 

By  William  R.  Inge,  D.D. 
Christianity  and  Sin. 

By  Robert  Mackintosh,  D.D. 
Protestant  Thought  Before  Kant. 

By  A.  C.  McGiFFERT,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 
The  Theology  of  the  Gospels. 

By  James  Moffatt,  D.D.,  D.Litt. 

History  of  Christian  Thought  Since  Kant 

By  Edward  Caldwell  Moore,  D.  D. 
The  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement. 

By  J.  K.  MozLEY,  M.A. 
Revelation  and  Inspiration. 

By  James  Orr,  D.D. 
A  Critical  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament 

By  Arthur  Samuel  Peake,  D.D. 
Philoso^y  and  Religion. 

By  Hastings  Rashdall,  D.Litt.  (Oxon.),  D.CXi 
(Durham),  F.B.A. 
The  Holy  Spirit 

By  T.  Rees,  M.A.  (Lond.),  B.A.  (Oxon.). 
The  Religious  Ideas  of  the  Old  Testament 

By  H.  Wheeler  Robinson,  M.A. 
The  Text  and  Canon  of  the  New  Testament 

By  Alexander  Souter,  D.Litt. 
Christian  Thought  to  the  Reformation. 

By  Herbert  B.  Workman,  D.Litt. 
The  Theology  of  the  Epistles. 

By  H.  A.  A.  Kennedy,  D.Sc.,  DJ>. 
The  Pharisees  and  Jesus. 

By  A.  T.  Rouertson,  A.M.,  D.D.,  LL.D, 
The  Originality  of  the  Christian  Message. 

By  H.  R.  Mackintosh,  D.D.,  D.Phil. 


A  CRITICAL 

INTRODUCTION  TO  THE 

OLD  TESTAMENT 


BY 

GEORGE   BUCHANAN   GRAY 

D.D.,   D.LITT. 

PROFESSOR  OF  HEBREW  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  EXEGESIS 
IN  MANSFIELD  COLLEGE,   OXFORD 


NEW  YORK 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 

1920 


57 


PREFACE 

Iw  spite  of  the  fact  that  it  is  customary  to  bind  it  in  a 
single  volume,  the  Old  Testament  contains  a  considerable 
body  of  literature.  Yet,  if  that  literature  were  simply 
and  unquestionably  the  product  of  the  small  number  of 
authors  recognised  by  *  tradition,'  though  there  would  be 
a  place  for  histories  of  Hebrew  literature,  there  would  be 
little  or  none  for  what  it  has  become  customary  to  call 
critical  introductions. 

But  *  tradition '  is  no  longer  really  accepted  even  by 
*  conservative '  scholars  :  they  may,  indeed,  maintain,  for 
example,  that  the  Pentateuch  is  the  work  of  Moses,  but 
they  recognise  at  the  same  time  that  it  has  received 
additions  from  later  hands  than  his,  additions,  too,  of 
considerably  greater  extent  than  the  record  of  Moses" 
death,  which  even  Jewish  *  tradition '  admitted,  though 
not  imanimously,  to  have  been  written  by  another. 

The  inquiries,  then,  with  which  critical  introductions 
are  concerned,  are  necessary,  and  the  real  difficulty  is  to 
do  justice  to  them  within  the  compass  of  a  small  volume. 
What  I  have  attempted  is  to  show  first  of  all  that  a 
problem  exists,  that  tradition  is  inadequate  to  explain 
the  facts  which  are  revealed  by  any  careful  study  of  the 
several  books.  The  actual  solution  of  the  various  problems 
can  often  be  but  very  partial ;  and  the  answers  to  many 
of  the  questions  that  arise  tentative,  and  far  from  certain. 
To  many  of  the  problems  many  different  solutions  or 
variations  of  the  same  solution  have  been  given.     It 

418771  ■ 


vi     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT 

would  have  been  impossible  to  give  even  an  inadequate 
account  of  all  of  these,  and  I  determined  to  devote  my 
allotted  space  to  as  full  a  presentation  of  the  evidence 
as  possible,  and  an  indication  of  one  or  two  of  the  more 
probable  conclusions,  or  at  least  of  the  direction  in  which 
such  conclusions  must  be  sought.  Under  the  circum- 
stances I  felt  it  best  to  take  upon  myself  in  most  cases  the 
responsibility  for  the  conclusions  suggested,  lest  for  lack 
of  space  I  might  do  injustice  to  the  form  in  which  other 
scholars  have  previously  presented  them.  For  this 
reason,  there  is  less  allusion  in  the  body  of  the  work  to 
other  scholars  than  there  would  otherwise  have  been; 
and  it  is  all  the  more  important,  therefore,  to  state  here 
once  for  all  that  beyond  the  selection  and  presentation  of 
the  material,  and  now  and  again,  perhaps,  a  fresh  turn  to 
an  argument,  this  volume  lays  no  claim  to  originality,  and 
that  the  names  of  scholars  in  whose  footsteps  I  have 
followed,  or  of  whose  work  I  have  availed  myself,  will 
be  found,  if  not  in  the  main  body  of  the  work,  in  the 
Bibliography  at  the  end. 

I  have  written  my  book  throughout  with  a  view  to  being 
intelligible  to  those  who  are  unfamiliar  with  Hebrew. 
For  a  just  estimate  of  the  often  very  important  linguistic 
evidence  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew  is,  indeed,  necessary : 
but  for  the  most  part  I  have  confined  myself  to  indicating 
the  general  character  and  significance  of  this  evidence, 
and  would  refer  the  reader  who  wishes  to  consider  it  more 
fully  to  the  larger  work  of  Dr.  Driver  in  which  it  is  so 
admirably  collected  and  interpreted.  For  the  rest,  though 
the  subject  can  doubtless  be  better  pursued  by  making  a 
constant  use  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  the  arguments  can,  I 
believe,  be  sufficiently  followed  with  the  help  of  a  good 
translation;    and  though,  wherever  possible,  it  will  be 


PREFACE  vii 

wise  to  make  use  of  a  more  critical  translation,  such  as 
some  of  the  more  recent  commentaries  and  other  works 
mentioned  in  the  BibUography  contain,  the  Revised  Version, 
which  is  for  all  critical  study  incomparably  superior  to  the 
Authorised  Version,  will  in  general  suffice,  especially  if  care- 
ful use  is  made  of  the  margins,  which  contain  so  much  of 
the  most  valuable  work  of  the  Revisers. 

The  several  books  are  discussed  in  the  order  in  which 
they  stand  in  the  EngUsh  Bible,  with  three  exceptions, 
and  these  will,  I  trust,  cause  no  inconvenience :  I  have 
grouped  Ruth  with  Esther  at  the  end  of  the  historical 
books.  Lamentations  with  the  non-prophetical,  poetical 
books,  and  reserved  Daniel  for  the  last  chapter. 

Chapter  xiv.  is  reprinted  with  some  shght  alterations, 
and  the  omission  of  sections  on  the  titles  and  religious 
characteristics  of  the  Psalter  (which  would  not  have  fallen 
within  the  scope  of  the  present  work),  from  the  article 
*  Psalms'  in  Dr.  Hastings's  Dictionary  oj  the.  Bible  in  One 
Volume*  I  take  this  opportunity  of  gratefully  acknow- 
ledging the  courtesy  of  the  publishers,  Messrs.  T.  and  T. 
Clark,  who  kindly  gave  me  permission  to  reproduce  these 
portions  of  the  article. 

G.  BUCHANAN  GRAY. 

SepUmiber  1912. 


CONTENTS 


9AQ9 
PRBFACB  ••••••r>V 

CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTOET      ....••  I 

CHAPTER  II 

HISTORICAL  LITERATURE  :   INTRODUCTORY  •  .  7 

CHAPTER  III 

THE  PENTATEUCH  I   TRADITION   AND   CRITICISM  ,  .  .13 

CHAPTER  IV 

THE  PENTATEUCH  :  ITS  SOURCES       •       »      •      .18 

CHAPTER  V 

THE  PENTATEUCH  :  DATES  OP  THE  SOURCES    .       •       .81 

CHAPTER  VI 

THE    PENTATEUCH  :     ITS    ORIGINS    AND    THE    HISTORY    OF    ITS 

GROWTH  ......*        39 

CHAPTER  VII 

THE  EARLIER  HISTORICAL   BOOKS  :    (1)   JOSHUA  AND  JUDQES     .         52 

CHAPTER  VIII 

THE   EARLIER  HISTORICAL   BOOKS  :    (2)    I.    IL    SAMUEL    .  •        66 

CHAPTER  IX 

THE   EARLIER   HISTORICAL   BOOKS  :    (3)    I.    IL    KINGS        •  •        76 


X       CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT 
CHAPTER  X 

PAOB 

THB  LATER  HI8TORI0AL  BOOKS  :   (1)  L   II.   CHRONICLBS  .        87 

CHAPTER  XI 

THB   LATER  HISTORICAL   BOOKS  :   (2)   EZRA   AND   NEHEMIAH        .        97 

CHAPTER  XU 

>IUTH  AND   ESTHER  .  .  .  «  .108 

CHAPTER  XIII 
JOB  •  •  •  •  •  •     115 

CHAPTER  XIV 

PSALMS     •  •  •  .  .  •  •  .      128 

CHAPTER  XV 

PROVERBS  •  •  .  .  •  •  .142 

CHAPTER  XVI 

ECCLESIASTS8       •  •  .  •  •  •149 

CHAPTER  XVII 

THE  BONO  or  80NQ8  ...•••      155 

CHAPTER  XVIII 

LAMENTATIom     ...•••  t      1C3 

CHAPTER  XIX 

THE  FEOPHETIO  UTERATURS  :   INTRODUCTORY   •  •  •      168 

CHAPTER  XX 

ISAIAH      •«•..•••      178 


CHAPTER  XXI 

JEREMIAH  •  .  .  . 


189 


BZEKIKL  • 

THE  TWELVE   PROPHETS 
HOSEA 
JOEL 
AMOS 
OBADIAH 
JONAH 
HICAH 
NAHUM 
HABAKKUE 
ZEPHANIAH 
HAOQAI      . 
ZECHARIAH 
HALACHI  • 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XXII 

•  •  • 

CHAPTER  XXIII 


DANIEL 


BlBLIOQRAFHT      • 

Ikdkjc     •  • 


CHAPTER  XXIV 


rAOB 

.  198 


.  203 

.  204 

.  207 

.  210 

.  213 

.  215 

.  217 

.  220 

.  221 

.  225 

.  226 

.  227 

,  231 


.  240 
•  S49 


A  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO 
THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTOBT 

Before  the  New  Testament  was  written,  the  Old  Testament 
formed  the  sacred  Scriptures  of  the  Christian  community ; 
for  Christianity,  springing  out  of  Judaism,  had  from  its 
birth  these  sacred  Scriptures  of  the  earlier  religion.  It 
was  but  gradually  that  a  selection  from  the  Uterature 
written  by  members  of  the  Christian  community  itself 
acquired  an  authoritative  and  sacred  character,  and  so 
became  part  of  the  Christian  Scriptures  ;  and,  even  then, 
the  distinction  between  what  had  first  ranked  as  Scriptures, 
and  what  only  later  acquired  the  same  authoritative 
character,  was  kept  clear.  This  distinction  has  never 
been  obliterated,  and  the  division  of  the  Christian  Bible 
into  Old  Testament  and  New  Testament  is  a  standing 
witness  to  an  important  historical  fact. 

The  Old  Testament,  the  Jewish  Bible,  had  itself  had  a 
similar  history,  though  this  is  unfortunately  concealed  in 
the  Enghsh  version  in  much  the  same  way  that  the  history 
of  the  Christian  Bible  would  have  been  concealed,  if  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  instead  of  being  kept  distinct, 
had  been  fused,  and  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  as  historical 
books,  placed  among  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. On  the  other  hand,  the  Hebrew  Bible  both  by  its 
title  and  its  arrangement  bears  witness  to  its  history :  to 
an  original  collection  of  Scriptures,  the  Law,  there  was 
added,  first  a  collection  of  prophetic  writings,  and  then 


/ 


2        XJI?iTICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTMIENT  [cH. 

another  v4ib?:b:iQaBfcefiaiicbus  collection.  The  Hebrew 
feible  is  entitled  *  Law,  Prophets,  Writings '  from  these 
three  collections  of  which  it  consists :  and  these  three  parts 
stand  in  the  following  order,  and  contain  respectively 
the  following  books  : — 

i.  Law. — Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deutero- 
nomy. 

ii.  Prophets, — Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  *  the  Twelve.* 

iii.  Writings, — Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job,  Song  of  Songs, 
Ruth,  Ecclesiastes,  Esther,  Daniel,  Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
Chronicles. 

Not  only,  however,  is  the  Old  Testament  a  collection  of 
sacred  Scriptures  ;  it  is  also  a  corpus  of  Hebrew  Uterature, 
including  all  that  survives  of  what  was  written  before  the 
Exile  (586  B.C.),  and  much  of  what  was  written  between 
the  Exile  and  the  Christian  era.  But  much  else  that  was 
written  in  this  later  period,  though  not  included  in  the 
Canon,  also  survives,  and  even  in  a  special  study  of  the 
canonical  books,  it  is  important  constantly  to  bear  in  mind 
the  existence  of  extra-canonical  hterature,  and  to  compare 
the  examples  of  any  type  of  hterature  within  the  Canon 
with  other  examples  of  the  same  types  that  survive  with- 
out the  Canon — Ecclesiasticus  and  Wisdom,  for  example, 
with  Proverbs  and  Job,  Enoch  and  the  Testaments  of  the 
Twelve  Patriarchs  with  Daniel,  the  Psalms  of  Solomon 
with  the  canonical  Psalter,  Tobit  and  Judith  with  Esther. 

Little  even  of  the  canonical  Uterature  was  written  with 
any  immediate  intention  that  it  should  form  part  of  a 
sacred  book  ;  and  consequently  an  enquiry  into  the  origin 
and  history  of  this  hterature  has  two  quite  distinct  ques- 
tions, or  sets  of  questions,  to  consider :  the  one  question 
is  how  and  when  did  the  Jewish  community  accept  this 
literature  as  sacred  and  authoritative ;  the  other  question 
is  how  and  when  were  the  contents  of  this  hterature  written. 
The  present  volume  is  immediately  concerned  with  the 
eecond  only  of  these  questions ;   the  first,  the  question  of 


I.]  INTRODUCTORY  8 

the  Canon,  is  reserved  for  another  volume  of  the  series.  Yet 
the  two  questions  though  distinct  are  in  certain  respects 
related,  and  it  may  be  convenient  to  record  here  the  con- 
clusions which  many  have  reached  and  in  which  the  present 
writer  concurs.  Parts  of  the  *  Law '  were  accepted  as  an  - 
authoritative  book  as  early  as  Josiah's  Reformation  in 
621  B.C. ;  the  whole,  or  substantially  the  whole,  Law  was 
so  accepted  by  444  B.C. ;  the  '  Prophets '  became  part  of 
Jewish  Scripture  not  improbably  soon  after  250  B.C. ;  and 
the  *  Writings  '  gradually  obtained  the  same  position  within 
the  next  two  or  three  centuries. 

Christianity,  like  Islam,  had  from  the  first  a  sacred 
book.  It  was  otherwise  with  the  Hebrews.  The  Hebrew 
reUgion  had  already  had  a  long  history  before  its  adoption  yj. 
in  621  B.C.  of  an  authoritative  docimient ;  and  a  long 
period  during  which  rehgious  Ufe  was  moulded  by  custom, 
or  by  the  words  of  priest  or  prophet  expounding  the  will 
of  God,  preceded  the  period  when  '  that  which  was  written 
in  the  law  of  Moses '  became  the  regular  norm.  Much  of 
the  contents  of  the  Old  Testament  was  written  in  the 
earHer  period  before  the  religion  of  the  Hebrews  could  in 
any  sense  be  caUed  a  book  rehgion. 

Again,  though  the  contents  of  the  New,  hke  that  of  the 
Old,  Testament  were  not  originally  intended  to  form  a 
sacred  volume,  yet  they  were  the  Hterary  expression  of  a 
community  that  was  created  and  maintained  by  other 
than  national  ties  ;  they  sprang  out  of  the  conditions  and 
circumstances,  and  aimed  at  satisfying  the  needs,  of  a 
religious  community.  And  in  this  respect,  too,  the  Old 
Testament  is  different :  parts  of  it,  indeed,  and  the 
setting  of  the  whole,  are  products  of  post-exilic  Judaism,  a  U^ 
community  which  is  often  described,  and  with  substantial  /  ^ 
accuracy,  as  religious  ra^r  than  national.  But  in  part 
also  the  Old  Testament  consists  of  the  remnants  of  the 
earlier  national  literature  of  the  Hebrews ;  and  however 
great  may  have  been  the  genius  of  the  Hebrews  for  religion, 
and  however  large  the  part  played  by  religion  in  hterature 
even  while  the  Hebrew  nation  existed,  the  national  genius 


4       CRinOAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

certainly  expressed  itself  also  in  literature  that  was  either 
in  no  sense  religious,  or  that  was  but  httle  affected  by 
religion.  David's  elegies  over  Saul  and  Jonathan  and 
over  Abner  are  not  reUgious  poems,  nor  was  Jotham's 
parable  intended  to  point  any  religious  lesson. 

The  Old  Testament,  then,  consists  of  (1)  the  remnants 
of  a  national  hterature  selected  and  probably  adapted  for 
the  needs  of  a  community  that  had  become,  or  was  becom- 
ing, far  more  rehgious  than  national  in  its  character,  and 
was  passing,  or  had  passed,  through  the  transition  from  a 
bookless  to  a  book  rehgion ;  and  (2)  literature  that  was 
the  product  of  this  later  reUgious  community.  Since  even 
this  later  hterature  was  not  written  in  the  firat  instance  to 
form  part  of  the  sacred  Book,  it,  too,  may  have  seemed  to 
call  for  adaptation  when  it  was  ultimately  included  in  it. 
Whether  such  adaptation  either  of  the  earUer  national 
or  the  later  rehgious  Hterature  actually  took  place,  and  to 
what  extent  in  different  cases,  must  be  left  for  subsequent 
consideration ;  but  in  attempting  any  critical  inquiry 
into  the  origin  of  the  Old  Testament  it  is  important  con- 
stantly to  bear  in  mind  that  it  does  not,  hke  the  Koran, 
consist  of  the  work  of  a  single  man,  the  founder  of  a  rehgion, 
nor,  hke  the  New  Testament,  of  the  hterary  product  of 
not  more  than  two  generations  of  a  rehgious  community, 
but  of  all  that  remains  of  the  national  hterature  of  the 
Hebrews  down  to  the  fall  of  the  state  in  586  B.C.,  together 
with  a  large  part  of  what  remains  of  the  hterature  produced 
by  the  Jewish  rehgious  community,  whether  in  Palestine 
or  abroad,  between  686  and  c.  150  B.C. 

Two  methods  of  deahng  with  this  hterature  are  possible  : 
we  might,  starting  with  the  earhest  period,  attempt  to  show 
how  all  that  survives  of  each  period  sprang  out  of  and 
reflects  the  circumstances  of  that  period,  and  so  write  a 
history  of  Hebrew  hterature  ;  but  before  that  can  be  done 
it  is  necessary  to  determine,  as  far  £is  is  possible,  the  date 
at  which  and  the  circumstances  under  which  these  several 
elements  came  into  being  :  it  is  this  prehminary  arxJ 
analytic  process  that  we  have  here  to  follow.    Yet  even 


L]  INTRODUCTORY  6 

this  can  only  be  followed  to  a  certain  distance  within  the 
limits  of  the  present  volume ;  for  the  Uteratm-e  is  in  large 
part  anonymous  and  of  uncertain  date,  and  most  of  the 
books  that  compose  the  Old  Testament  appear  to  have 
reached  the  form  in  which  we  have  received  them  by  more 
or  less  lengthy  and  complicated  processes  of  combination, 
abbreviation,  annotation,  and  rearrangement,  which  would 
take  long  to  describe,  even  if  critical  analysis  had  succeeded 
in  rendering  these  processes  in  aU  respects  clear  and 
certain :  as  a  matter  of  fact,  as  soon  at  all  events  as 
we  pass  beyond  the  main  processes,  we  are  faced  with 
much  imcertainty  which  gives  rise  to  many  theories; 
these  it  would  take  still  longer  to  state  and  discuss  at  all 
exhaustively. 

Over  against  the  more  or  less  probable,  and  sometimes 
conflicting,  conclusions  which  have  been  drawn  from  a 
critical  study  of  the  Old  Testament,  there  is  still  not  in- 
frequently set  what  is  described  as  Jewish  tradition,  or 
traditional  views.  In  detail  these  must  be  left  to  be 
referred  to  as  occasion  arises ;  but  it  will  be  convenient 
at  the  outset  to  cite  the  important  summary  of  Jewish 
tradition,  or,  to  speak  more  properly,  of  Rabbinic  criticism 
(between  c.  200  and  500  a.d.),  contained  in  the  Talmudic 
tractate  Baba  Baihra  (146.  15a.)  :  this  passage  makes  a  T^ 
perfectly  definite  statement  with  regard  to  the  writing  of 
each  book  of  the  Old  Testament ;  according  to  it  Moses 
was  the  earliest  and  Ezra  the  latest  of  those  who  wrote 
the  Scriptures  :  it  reads  as  follows  : — 

*  Moses  wrote  his  own  book,  and  the  section  about  Balaam 
and  Job.  Joshua  wrote  his  own  book,  and  eight  verses 
in  the  Torah.  Samuel  wrote  his  own  book,  and  the  Books  ?\ 
of  Judges  and  Ruth.  David  wrote  the  Book  of  Psalms 
at  the  direction  of  the  ten  elders,  the  first  man,  Melchizedek, 
and  Abraham,  and  Moses,  and  Heman,  and  Jeduthun,  and 
Asaph,  and  the  three  sons  of  Korah.  Jeremiah  wrote  his 
own  book,  and  the  Book  of  Kings  and  Lamentations. 
Hezekiah  and  his  company  wrote  Isaiah,  Proverbs,  Song  of 
Songs,  and  Ecclesiastes.    The  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue 


6       CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

wrote  Ezekiel,  and  the  Twelve  (Minor  Prophets),  Daniel, 
and  the  Roll  of  Esther.  Ezra  wrote  his  own  book  and  the 
genealogies  in  Chronicles  down  to  his  own  time.' 

This  passage  contains  the  prevailing  Rabbinic  opinion, 
but  what  follows  indicates  clearly  that  it  was  opinion  not 
derived  from  any  continuous  tradition,  but  based  on  a  very 
crude  criticism,  and  that  it  was  not  on  all  points  undisputed. 
Thus  the  conclusion  that  Joshua  wrote  eight  verses  of  the 
^^  Law,  viz.  Deut.  xxxiv.  5-12,  rests  on  the  inference  that  it 
was  not  possible  that  *  Moses  should  in  his  Ufetime  have 
written  the  words  "  And  he  died  there  "  * ;  on  the  contrary 
another  Rabbi  argued  that  when  it  was  said,  *  Take  this 
book  of  the  law,'  the  book  must  have  been  complete,  and 
consequently  that  Moses  wrote  the  Law  down  to  the  very 
end.  *  Verily,  up  to  this  point  [at  which  Moses'  death  is 
recorded]  the  Almighty  dictated  and  Moses  wrote ;  but 
from  that  point  onwards  the  Almighty  dictated,  and  Moses 
'A  wrote  with  tears.'  It  was  also  inferred  that  the  statement 
in  Joshua  of  Joshua's  death  was  added  by  Eleazar,  of 
Eleazar's  death  by  Phinehas  and  the  elders,  and  the 
statement  of  Samuel's  death  in  Samuel  by  Gad  and  Nathan. 

The  crudeness  of  the  criticism  underlying  this  Rabbinic 
opinion  may  be  judged  from  a  further  illustration :  Job 
was  contemporary  with  Moses,  for  the  same  Hebrew 
particle,  epho,  occurs  in  Job  xix.  23  and  Ex.  xxxiii.  16,  and 
Moses  wrote  the  book  of  Job,  for  Job  expresses  the  wish 
that  his  words  were  inscribed  in  a  book  (Job  xix.  23),  and 
Moses  is  called  the  '  inscriber  *  (Deut.  xxxiii.  21). 


iLl      HISTORICAL  LITERATURE :    INTRODUCTORY 


CHAPTER  II 

HISTORICAL  LITERATURE:   INTRODUCTORY 

Rather  more  than  half  of  the  Old  Testament  is  history ; 
included  in  the  historical  books  is  also  all  that  survives  of 
Hebrew  law.  Before  examining  the  several  books  in  detail 
it  will  be  convenient  to  take  a  survey  of  the  scope  of  them 
as  a  whole,  and  also  to  consider  in  the  light  of  the  whole 
certain  methods  of  Hebrew  historians. 

Opening  with  narratives  of  the  Creation  and  early  history 
of  the  world,  the  Pentateuch  rapidly  narrows  down  to  a 
record  of  Israel,  and  the  history  is  carried  as  far  as  the  first 
stage  of  the  Israelite  conquest  of  Canaan  and  the  death  of 
Moses ;  Joshua  and  Judges  carry  on  the  story  of  conquest 
and  settlement  to  the  eve  of  the  establishment  of  the 
monarchy ;  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy  and  the 
history  of  the  people  under  it  to  its  fall  in  586  B.C.  is 
recorded  in  Samuel  and  Kings. 

Chronicles  is  a  parallel  history :  it,  too,  starts  with  the 
first  man,  Adam,  and  it,  too,  rapidly  narrows  down  to  the 
history  of  the  chosen  people  and,  narrower  in  this  respect 
than  the  other  series  of  books,  after  the  death  of  Solomon, 
to  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  only.  The  narrative 
is  carried  rather  further  than  in  Kings,  to  the  return  from 
captivity  in  537  B.C.  From  the  point  at  which  Chronicles 
breaks  off,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  carry  on  the  story  down  id 
the  age  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  i.e.  to  the  year  432  B.C. 

There  remain  two  books  which  are  not  associated  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible  with  any  of  those  just  mentioned,  but  which 
are  included  in  the  E.  V.  in  the  historical  section  of  the  Old 
Testament :   these  are  (1)  Ruth,  which  relates  an  episode 


8       CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [C5H. 

in  the  period  of  the  Judges  relating  to  an  ancestress  of 
David  ;  and  (2)  Esther,  which  relates  an  episode  in  the  life 
of  the  Jews  in  Persia  at  a  time  immediately  previous  to 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  Ruth  and  Esther  within,  hke  the 
similar  books  of  Judith  and  Tobit  without,  the  Canon  thus 
stand  outside  both  of  the  two  series  of  narratives  which 
bring  down  the  history  of  Israel,  in  the  one  case  to  586, 
in  the  other  to  432  B.C. 

The  second  of  the  two  great  series  of  narratives — 
Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah — is  not  independent  of  the 
first,  but  in  large  part  rests  upon  it,  and  there  is  no  better 
or  surer  way  to  an  understanding  of  the  methods  of  a  Hebrew 
historian  than  by  a  comparison  of  corresponding  parts  of 
Chronicles  and  of  Samuel  or  Kings.  The  later  writer,  with 
an  earlier  work  before  him,  was  content  to  copy  out  word 
for  word  passages  of  the  earUer  work  without  any  particular 
acknowledgment  that  he  was  so  doing  ;  at  times  also  he  ab-  v- 
breviated,  at  times  he  expanded ;  at  times  he  intro- 
duced purely  verbal  modifications ;  at  times  he  introduced 
modifications  that  greatly  affected  the  sense  of  the  original. 
A  fuller  discussion  of  those  methods,  as  illustrated  by 
Chronicles,  will  be  found  below  (ch.  x.),  but  it  is  im- 
portant before  approaching  the  special  problems  of  other 
historical  books  to  study  carefully  some  examples  of 
the  method  actually  followed  by  a  Hebrew  historian 
in  composing  a  historical  narrative.  Subjoined  are 
extracts  in  parallel  columns  from  Samuel  and  Chronicles : 
the  variations  in  Chronicles  from  the  source  are  itahcised. 

2  Sam.  X.  1-5.  1  Chr.  xix.  1-5. 

^  And  it  came  to  pass  after  ^  And  it  came  to  pass  after 
this,  that  the  king  of  the  children  this,  that  Nahash  the  king  of 
of  Ammon  died,  and  Hanun  his  the  children  of  Ammon  died,  and 
son  reigned  in  his  stead.  *  And  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead. 
David  said,  I  will  shew  kindness  ■  And  David  said,  I  will  shew 
unto  Hanun  the  son  of  Nahash,  kindness  unto  Hanun  the  son 
as  his  father  shewed  kindness  of  Nahash,  because  his  father 
unto  me.  So  David  sent  by  the  shewed  kindness  to  me.  So 
band  of  his  servants  to  com-  David  sent  messengers  to  com- 
fort him  concerning  his  father,  fort  him  concerning  his  father. 


n.]      HISTORICAL  LITERATURE :    INTRODUCTORY  9 


2  Sam.  X.  1-6. 

And  David's  servants  came  into 
the  land  of  the  children  of 
Ammon.  *  But  the  princes  of 
the  children  of  Ammon  said 
unto  Hanun  their  lord,  Thinkest 
thou  that  David  doth  honour 
thy  father,  that  he  hath  sent 
comforters  unto  thee  ?  hath  not 
David  sent  his  servants  unto 
thee  for  the  sake  of  searching 
the  city,  and  to  spy  it  out,  and 
to  overthrow  it  ?  *  So  Hanun 
took  David's  servants,  and 
shaved  off  the  one  half  of  their 
beards,  and  cut  o£E  their  gar- 
ments in  the  middle,  even  to 
their  buttocks,  and  sent  them 
away.  *  Then  (certain  persons) 
told  David.  And  he  sent  to  meet 
them  ;  for  the  men  were  greatly 
ashamed.  And  the  king  said, 
Tarry  at  Jericho  until  your 
beards  be  grown,  and  then 
return. 


1  Chr.  xix.  1-5. 

And  David's  servants  came  unio 
the  land  of  the  children  of  Am- 
mon to  Hanun  to  comfort  him. 

•  But  the  princes  of  the  children 
of  Ammon  said  to  Hanun 

,  Thinkest  thou  that  David 
doth  honour  thy  father,  that  he 
hath  sent  comforters  unto  thee  7 
Are  not  his  servants  come  unto 
thee  for  to  search,  and  to  over- 
throw, and  to  spy  out  the  land  ? 

*  So  Hanun  took  David's  ser- 
vants, and  shaved  them, 

and  cut 
off  their  garments  in  the  middle, 
even  to  their  hips,  and  sent  them 
away.  •  Then  (certain  persons) 
went  and  told  David  how  the 
men  were  served.  And  he  sent 
to  meet  them ;  for  the  men 
were  greatly  ashamed.  And  the 
king  said.  Tarry  at  Jericho  until 
that  your  beards  be  grown,  and 
then  return. 


2  Sam.  xxiv.  1-10. 

^  And  again  the  anger  of 
Yahweh  was  kindled  against 
Israel,  and  he  moved  David 
against  them,  saying.  Go,  num- 
ber Israel  and  Judah.  *  And 
the  king  said  to  Joab,  the  cap- 
tain of  the  host,  which  was  with 
him,  Go  now  to  and  fro  through 
all  the  tribes  of  Israel,  from  Dan 
even  to  Beer-sheba,  and  muster 
ye  the  people,  and  so  I  shall 
know  the  number  of  the  people. 
^  And  Joab  said  unto  the  king. 
Now  Yahweh  thy  God  add 
unto  the  people  an  hundred 
times  so  many  more  as  ever  they 
be,  and  may  the  eyes  of  my 


1  Chr.  xxi  1-8. 

*  And 

Satan  stood  up  against 
Israel,  and  moved  David  to 
number  Israel. 

^  And  David  said  to  Joab  and 
to   the   captains  of   the  people, 

Go 


number  Israel  from  Beer-sheba 


even  to  Dan ;  and  bring  me 
word,  that  I  may  know  the  num- 
ber of  them. 

^  And  Joab  said  , 

Yahweh  add 

unto    his    people    an    hundred 
times  so  many  more  as 
they  be  ;   (but),  my  lord 


10     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 


2  Sam.  xxiv.  1-10. 

lord  the  king  see  it:  but  why 
hath  my  lord  the  king  delight 
in  this  thing.  *  And  (yet)  the 
king's  word  prevailed  against 
Joab,  and  against  the  captains 
of  the  host.  And  Joab  and  the 
captains  of  the  host  went  out 
from  the  presence  of  the  king, 
to  muster  the  people  of  IsraeL 
•  And  they  passed  over  Jordan, 
and  pitched  in  Aroer,  on  the 
right  side  of  the  city  that  is  in 
the  middle  of  the  valley  of  Gad, 
and  unto  Jazer.  •  Then  they 
came  to  Gilead,  and  to  the  land 
of  Tahtim-hodshi ;  and  they 
oame  to  Dan-jaan,  and  round 
about  to  Zidon,  '  and  came  to 
the  stronghold  of  Tyre,  and  to 
all  the  cities  of  the  Hivites,  and 
of  the  Canaanites:  and  they 
went  to  the  south  of  Judah, 
at  Beer-sheba.  •  And  (so)  they 
went  to  and  fro  through  all 
the  land,  and  came  to  Jeru- 
salem at  the  end  of  nine  months 
and  twenty  days.  •  And  Joab 
gave  up  the  number  of  the 
muster  of  the  people  unto  the 
king:  and  (the  number  of) 
Israel  was  800,000  valiant  men 
that  drew  sword ;  and  the  men 
of  Judah  were  500,(XX)  men. 


^  And  David's  heart  smote  him 
after  that  he  had  numbered  the 
people.  And  David  said  unto 
Yahweh,  I  have  sinned  greatly 
in  that  I  have  done :    but  now, 


1  Chr.  XXL  1-8. 

the  king,  are  ihey  not  all  my 
lord^a  servants  ?  Why  doth  my 
lord  require  this.  Why  will  he 
6e  a  cavse  of  guilt  unto  IsraeLf 
*  But  the  king's  word  prevailed 
against  Joab 

•    And  Joab 
weol 
oat 


and 

werd  up  and  down  through  all 
Israel^  and  came  to  Jeru- 
salem 

.  •  And  Joab 
gave  up  the  number  of  the 
muster  of  the  people  unto 
David.  And  (the  number  of) 
all  Israel  was  1,100,000 

men  that  drew 
sword :  and  Judah  was  470,000 
men  thai  drew  »word.  •  Bui 
Levi  and  Benjamin  he  mustered 
not  among  them:  for  the  king's 
toord  was  ahomirvable  to  Joab. 
'  And  Qod  was  displeased  unth 
this  thing:  and  {so)  he  smote 
IsraeL 


•  And  David  said  unto 
Qodf  I  have  sinned  greatly  in  tha* 
I  have  done  this  thing :  but  noWr 


n.]      HISTORICAL  LITERATURE :    INTRODUCTORY        11 

2  Sam.  xxiv.  1-ia  1  Chr.  xxi.  1-8. 

O  Yahweh,  put  away.  I  beseech  put  away,  I  beseech 

thee  the  iniquity  of  thy  servant :  thee,  the  iniquity  of  thy  servant ; 

for  I  have  done  very  f ooUshly.  for  I  have  done  very  f ooHshly. 

Whether  the  author  of  Chronicles  had  other  sources 
which  he  treated  in  the  same  way  as  he  treated  the  earlier 
series  of  historical  books  still  surviving  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, now  copying  word  for  word,  now  introducing  modifi- 
cations, is  a  question  which  must  be  deferred ;  but  in 
any  case  we  cannot  watch  his  treatment  of  such  sources, 
for  they  have  perished. 

But  how  would  a  Hebrew  historian  have  proceeded,  if  he 
had  been  working  with  two  or  more  narratives  of  the  same 
events  ?  The  question  cannot  be  answered  by  reference  to 
any  Hebrew  historical  work  of  which  such  multiple  sources 
survive  ;  but  we  can  watch  the  method  adopted  by  a  later 
Semite  in  a  work  which  found  most  favour  with  Semitic, 
and,  in  particular,  with  Syrian  readers.  The  Diatessaron 
of  Tatian  (f  c.  a.d.  150)  is  a  life  of  our  Lord  composed 
by  piecing  together  passages  from  four  parallel  sources — 
to  wit,  the  four  Gospels.  The  following  passage,  cited 
from  Mr.  Hamlyn  Hill's  translation,  consists  of  the 
following  extracts  from  the  sources :  Matt.  iii.  13 ;  Luke  iii. 
23a. ;  John  i.  29-31 ;  Matt.  iii.  14-15 ;  Luke  iii.  21a. ;  Matt.  iii. 
16b. ;  Luke  iii.  22a. ;  Matt.  iii.  17 ;  John  i.  32-56  :— 

*  Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  the  Jordan  unto 
John  to  be  baptized  of  him.  And  Jesus  was  about  thirty 
years  of  age,  and  was  supposed  to  be  the  son  of  Joseph. 
Now  John  saw  Jesus  coming  unto  him,  and  saith.  This  is 
the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world. 
This  is  he  of  whom  I  said.  After  me  shall  come  a  man,  which 
is  preferred  before  me,  for  he  is  before  me.  And  I  knew 
him  not ;  but  that  he  may  be  made  manifest  to  Israel, 
for  this  cause  am  I  come  baptizing  in  water.  Now  John 
was  forbidding  him,  saying,  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of 
thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me  ?  Jesus  answered  him,  and 
said,  Suffer  it  now :    thus  it  becometh  us  to   fulfil  all 


12     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

righteousness.  Then  he  suffered  him.  And  when  all  the 
people  were  baptized,  Jesus  also  was  baptized;  and  he 
went  up  straightway  from  the  water :  and  the  heaven  was 
opened  unto  him.  And  the  Holy  Spirit  descended  upon 
him  in  the  form  of  a  dove's  body :  and  lo,  a  voice  from 
heaven,  saying,  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased.  And  John  bare  witness,  sa3dng,  Furthermore  I 
saw  the  Spirit  descending  as  a  dove  out  of  heaven ;  and  it 
abode  upon  him.' 

Nor  are  the  methods  which  we  can  actually  observe, 
having  both  the  later  works  and  their  sources  before  us, 
in  the  case  of  Chronicles  and  Tatian's  DiatessaroUy  in  any 
way  singular  in  Semitic  Uterature.  Arabic  Uterature 
affords  many  examples  of  the  same  methods,  and  instruc- 
tive illustrations  of  the  method  from  Arabic  writers  have 
been  given  both  by  Professor  Guidi  *  and  Professor 
Bevan.» 

In  Chronicles  the  passages  derived  from  the  earlier 
works  and  the  matter  peculiar  (so  far  as  we  know)  to 
Chronicles  are  sharply  distinguished  in  style ;  conse- 
quently where  in  other  works  we  find  marked  differences 
of  style,  in  the  light  of  the  proved  methods  of  Semitic 
writers,  it  will  be  an  obvious  and  probable  hypothesis, 
that  the  difference  is  due  to  the  incorporation  of  passages, 
or  even  of  sentences  merely,  from  an  earlier  work. 

1  Revut  BMique,  1906,  pp.  509-519. 

i  *  Historical  Methods  in  uie  Old  Testamest,'  i»  Cambridge  Biblical  £$sav$^ 
•d.  H.  B.  Swete,  1909. 


ni.l  THE  PENTATEUCH:    TRADITION  AND  CRITICISM   13 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  PENTATEUCH:   TRADITION  AND  CRITICISM 

The  Pentateuch  is  a  single  work  which  after  its  completion  \ 
was  divided  into  five  parts  :  these  parts  received  from  the 
Greek  translators  the  distinctive  names,  Genesis,  Exodus, 
L«viticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy.  In  Jewish  usage  the 
single  term  Torah,  Law,  covers  the  whole,  and  that  the 
five  sections  are  parts  of  a  single  whole  is  further  implied 
by  the  Jewish  term  for  them — the  *  five-fifths  of  the  law.* 

Within  the  Pentateuch,  indeed,  according  to  modem 
critical  theory,  many  different  books  or  works  are  frag- 
mentarily  preserved;  but  no  book  postulated  by  this 
theory  coincides  with  any  of  the  five  divisions  of  the 
Pentateuch. 

Among  the  independent  or  older  works  included  in  the 
Pentateuch  are  books  of  law,  and  from  these  the  Jewish 
title  for  the  whole  is  derived ;    yet  the  Pentateuch  as  a 
whole,  though  entitled  *  the  Law,*  is  in  form  a  history    \ 
containing  law  rather  than  law  containing  historyr^ 

Opening  with  the  Creation  of  the  world,  the  narrative 
in  Genesis  passes  rapidly  through  the  story  of  the  early 
stages  in  the  history  of  mankind,  to  follow  with  greater 
particularity  the  fortunes  of  Abraham  and  his  descendants, 
and  of  these  principally  the  fine  of  Isaac,  Israel  (or  Jacob), 
and  the  twelve  sons  of  Israel.  So  far  Genesis.  Exodus 
carries  on  the  narrative  of  Israel's  descendants ;  their 
enslavement  in  Egypt,  their  release,  their  journey  to  Sinai, 
and  their  reception  of  the  Law.  Then  follows  a  long 
section  mainly  consisting  of  laws  and  instructions  (Ex.  xx.- 
Num.  X.  10).    The  narrative  is  resumed  with  the  departure 


14     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch 

from  Sinai  (Num.  x.  11  ff.),  the  subsequent  wanderings  in 
the  wilderness,  and  the  conquest  of  Eastern  Canaan ; 
and  then,  after  another  long  section  of  law  that  occupies 
the  central  part  of  Deuteronomy,  it  closes  with  the  death 
and  burial  of  Moses. 

One  thing  would  appear  to  follow  at  once  and  of  necessity 
from  this  brief  survey  of  the  work,  viz.,  that  Moses  was  not 
its  author,  but  that  it  was  written  after  his  death.  And 
the  necessity  of  this  conclusion  did  not  escape  the  Jewish 
Rabbis  whose  opinion  has  been  already  cited  (p.  5)  ;  but 
they  attempted  to  turn  the  force  of  it  by  a  very  simple 
hypothesis  :  Moses  wrote  the  whole  Torah  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  narrative  of  his  death,  and  that  was  added 
by  Joshua  ;  or  in  other  words,  the  Torah  was  the  work  of 
two  writers,  though  the  contribution  of  the  second  was 
exiguous.  Even  this  admission  was  challenged,  and  some 
Rabbis  continued  to  maintain  that  the  whole  law  was 
written  by  Moses,  including  the  narrative  of  his  death  and 
burial ;  for,  with  less  acuteness  than  Hobbes,  they  had  not 
perceived  that  *  it  were  a  strange  interpretation  to  say  Moses 
spake  of  his  own  sepulchre,  though  by  prophecy,  that  it 
was  not  found  to  that  day  wherein  he  was  yet  hving.' 

The  Rabbinic  opinion  just  discussed  is  obviously  not 
pure  tradition  ;  there  was  no  tradition  that  Joshua  wrote 
the  eight  verses  recording  the  death  of  Moses ;  but  it  is 
criticism  (and,  however  slight,  yet  correct  so  far  its  negation 
is  concerned)  playing  upon  a  long-estabUshed  method  of 
speech  according  to  which  the  law  was  the  law  of  Moses,  so 
that  citations  from  it  were  described  indifferently  as  from 
*  the  law  *  or  from  *  Moses.* 

How  far  back  can  this  method  of  speech  be  traced  ? 
What  exactly  did  it  imply  ?  What  is  the  age  of,  and  how 
explicit  is,  the  tradition  that  associates  Moses  with  the 
Pentateuch  ? 

In  the  New  Testament  the  name  of  Moses  is  cited  not 
only  for  individual  laws  (e.g.  Matt.  viii.  4,  xix.  7,  xxii.,  24  ; 
Mark  vii.  10  ;  1  Cor.  ix.  9),  but  also  for  narratives  (Mark 
xii.    26)    in   the   Pentateuch.    And   in   several   passages 


m.]THE  PENTATEUCH:   TRADITION  AND  CRITICISM   15 

*  Moses,'  or  *  the  law  of  Moses,'  is  used  in  such  connections 
that  we  may  safely  understand  them  to  be  modes  of  refer- 
ence to  the  entire  Pentateuch,  see  e.g.  Luke  xvi.  29,  31  ; 
2  Cor.  iii.  15  ;  Acts  xxviii  23  ;  cp.  John  i.  45. 

In  the  later  books  of  the  Old  Testament  also,  we  find 
frequent  references  to  a  written  work  that  is  called  '  the 
law  of  Moses,'  '  the  book  of  Moses,'  or  *  the  book  of  the 
law  of  Moses,'  and  in  some  of  these  it  is  probable,  or  at 
least  possible,  that  the  entire  Pentateuch  is  intended :  see 
e.g.  2  Chron.  xxiii.  18,  xxv.  4,  xxxv.  12  ;  Ezra  iii.  2,  vi.  18 ; 
Neh.  xiii.  1  ;  Dan.  ix.  11,  13.  In  books,  parts  of  which  are 
earUer  than  those  just  cited,  we  find  similar  references : 
see  1  Kings  ii.  3 ;  2  Kings  xiv.  6 ;  Josh.  viii.  31  f.,  xxiii.  6.  . 
But  in  the  first  place,  the  date  at  which  such  passages  were  V 
written  is  an  open  question,  and  secondly  the  implication 
of  them  is  uncertain ;  they  do  not  necessarily  imply  a  book 
CO- extensive  with  the  Pentateuch ;  they  would  be  com- 
pletely expHcable,  if  a  book  of  law  pure  and  simple,  un- 
mingled  with  narrative,  existed.  We  cannot,  therefore, 
leaving  the  date  involved  open,  even  assert  that  the  tradi- 
tion that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  is  as  ancient  as 
the  earhest  of  these  references ;  all  we  can  say  is  that  a 
tradition  existed  at  such  date  that  Moses  was  the  author 
of  a  book  of  the  law. 

But  there  probably  underlay  all  these  references  the 
tacit  understanding  that  Moses  was  as  closely  associated 
with  the  whole  as  with  any  part  of  the  whole  referred  to  : 
it  may  be  that  the  manner  of  speech  in  question  arose  in 
the  first  instance  because  a  given  Hterary  work  contained 

*  laws  of  Moses,'  though  it  was  not  at  first  considered  to  be 
in  its  entirety,  in  its  accompanying  narratives,  for  example, 
the  work  of  Moses ;  but,  be  this  as  it  may,  those  who 
subsequently  used  or  heard  the  phrases,  *  the  law  of  Moses,' 

*  the  book  of  Moses,'  in  so  far  as  they  thought  of  the  matter 
at  all,  must  have  thought  of  Moses  as  the  author  of  the 
whole ;  it  was  only  the  critical  minds  of  Jewish  Rabbis 
that  excepted  the  closing  section,  and  inferred  that  it  was 
the  work  of  another. 


16     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

Beyond  this  slight  and  obvious  criticism  no  considerable 
advance  was  made  for  centmies.  But  in  the  twelfth 
century  a.d.  the  distinguished  Jewish  scholar  Ibn  Ezra 
drew  attention  to  certain  passages  which  indicated  that  the 
non-Mosaic  element  in  the  Pentateuch  was  much  more 
considerable  than  the  earlier  Rabbinic  criticism  had  ad- 
mitted. His  words,  in  which  he  prudently  abstained  from 
explicitly  drawing  a  conclusion,  are :  *  If  you  penetrate 
the  secret  of  the  twelve  [i.e.  probably  the  twelve  verses 
recording  Moses'  death],  also  of  "  And  Moses  wrote " 
(Ex.  xxiv.  4 ;  Num.  xxxiii.  2 ;  Deut.  xxxi.  9,  22),  and 
"  The  Canaanite  was  then  in  the  land  "  (Gen.  xii.  6),  and 
"  In  the  mountain  of  the  Lord  he  appears  *'  (Gen.  xxii.  14), 
and  "  his  bedstead  was  a  bedstead  of  iron  "  (Deut.  iii.  11), 
you  will  discover  the  truth.' 

I  It  is  not  possible  here  to  follow  the  history  of  critical 
.observation,  but  by  degrees  attention  was  drawn  to  a 
number  of  passages  which  were  obviously  of  non-Mosaic 
<  authorship,  and  some  of  them  obviously  also  of  post-Mosaic 
origin.  The  closing  section  of  Deuteronomy  must  have 
been  written  after  the  death  of  Moses  ;  the  Ust  of  Edomite 
-V--  kings  (Gen.  xxxvi.  31-43)  that  reigned  *  before  there  reigned 
any  king  over  the  children  of  Israel '  must  have  been 
written  at  least  as  late  as  Saul,  the  first  Hebrew  king ; 
Gen.  xiv.  14,  which  alludes  to  Dan  at  least  as  late  as  the 
period  of  the  Judges,  when  the  ancient  city  of  Laish  first 
received  the  name  Dan  (Judges  xviii.  29)  ;  such  statements 
as  '  the  Canaanite  was  then  in  the  land  '  (Gen.  xii.  6,  xiii.  7) 
after  the  period  of  the  Judges  when  the  Canaanites  still 
continued  to  be  an  important  part  of  the  population  of  the 
land  (Judges  i.  27,  29,  32,  33).  There  are  also  other  archae- 
ological notices  which  point  scarcely  less  conclusively,  if 
not  quite  so  obviously  and  immediately,  to  the  post-Mosaic 
age  :  Og,  according  to  the  story,  was  a  contemporary  of 
Moses,  but  his  bed  in  Rabbath  is  to  the  writer  of  Deut.  iii.  11 
a  curious  relic  of  a  bygone  age.  See  also  Deut.  ii.  10-12, 
20-23. 
A  slight  extension  of   the  old  Rabbinic  theory  might 


in.]  THE  PENTATEUCH:   TRADITION  AND  CRITICISM   17 

suffice  to  explain  isolated  phenomena  of  the  kind  referred 
to  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  and  if  observation  had 
discovered  nothing  more  than  these,  it  would  be  a  possible 
hypothesis  that  a  work  of  Moses  had  been  sUghtly  expanded 
and  glossed  by  one  or  more  later  writers.  But  such  a  theory 
loses  all  probability  as  soon  as  a  further  point,  which  Ibn 
Ezra  appears  to  have  appreciated,  is  also  duly  considered. 
->i  Throughout  the  Pentateuch,  except  in  speeches  placed  in  \ 
his  mouth,  Moses  is  spoken  of  in  the  third  person.  There 
are,  of  course,  analogies  in  Uterature,  such  as  the  Com- 
mentaries of  Caesar,  for  an  author  speaking  of  himself  in  the 
third  person,  and  if  there  were  no  indications  of  post- 
Mosaic  date  in  the  work,  it  might  be  reasonable  to  continue 
to  consider  the  possibiUty  of  Moses  being  its  author ;  but 
as  we  have  seen  there  are  numerous  indications  of  post- 
Mosaic  origin.  Moreover,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  Moses, 
no  less  than  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  is  throughout 
treated  as  a  figure  in  the  history  of  a  past  age  :  judgment 
is  passed  upon  him  in  an  entirely  objective  way :  *  the 
man  Moses  was  very  meek,  above  aU  the  men  which  were 
upon  the  face  of  the  earth  '  (Num.  xii.  3). 

In  brief,  the  Pentateuch  itself  makes  no  claim  to  be  the  V 
work  of  Moses.  On  the  other  hand,  reference  is  made  in 
certain  passages  to  records  which  were  written  by  Moses, 
and  in  some  of  these  passages  it  is  more  or  less  clearly 
intimated  that  the  records  in  question  are  incorporated  in, 
or  form,  to  some  extent,  the  basis  of,  the  Pentateuchal 
narrative  :  see  Ex.  xvii.  14,  xxiv.  4,  xxxiv.  27 ;  Num.  xxxiii. 
2  ;  Deut.  xxxi.  9-13,  22,  24-26.  But  m  view  even  of  the 
evidence  already  adduced  the  conclusion  is  scarcely  to  be 
avoided  that  the  narrative  incorporating  '  Mosaic  records ' 
is  not  itself  Mosaic,  and  this  conclusion  is  independently 
suggested  by  a  fuller  consideration  of  the  sources  of  the 
Pentateuch  to  which  we  must  now  pass. 


18     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [cai. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  PENTATEUCH:    ITS  SOURCES 

The  Pentateuch  is  a  narrative  at  first  of  the  history  of 
mankind,  and  then  of  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  and  in 
vj'  particular  of  the  IsraeUtes,  down  to  the  death  of  Moses. 
Into  this  narrative  are  introduced  at  divers  places  bodies 
of  law.  These  laws  are  commonly  introduced  as  having 
been  spoken  to  Moses,  and  many  of  them  could  be  regarded, 
for  anything  that  the  narrative  of  the  Pentateuch  says  to 
the  contrary,  as  having  been  first  written  as  part  of  that  work. 
I  But  in  Ex.  xxiv.  4,  Deut.  xxxi.  9  ff.,  there  are  unmistakable 
allusions  to  laws  now  in  the  Pentateuch  having  been  written 
prior  to  the  narrative  that  refers  to  them.  Thus  the 
Pentateuch  draws  upon,  if  indeed  it  does  not  actually 
incorporate,  previously  independent  legal  documents. 

Further,  the  Pentateuch  contains  poems  attributed  to 
several  different  authors — the  song  of  Lamech  (Gen.  iv.  23  f.), 
the  curse  of  Noah  (Gen.  ix.  26  f.),  a  divine  oracle  (Gen. 
XXV.  23),  the  blessings  of  Isaac  (Gen.  xxvii.  27-29,  39  f.), 
the  blessing  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xhx.  2-27),  the  song  of  Moses 
Ex.  XV.  1-18),  the  song  of  Miriam  (Ex.  xv.  21),  a  poetical 
fragment  cited  from  the  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Yahwen 
(Num.  xxi.  14  f.),  a  folk-song  (Num.  xxi.  17  f.),  a  paean 
recited  by  the  professional  reciters  (Num.  xxi.  27-30),  songs 
of  Balaam  (Num.  xxiii.  7-10,  18-24,  xxiv.  3-9,  15-24),  the 
song  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxxii.  1-43),  the  blessing  of  Moses 
(xxxiii.  1-29). 

To  a  considerable  extent,  then,  the  Pentateuch  is  a 
compilation  from  previously  existing  material — written 
legal  documents,  and  poems,  of  which  some  at  least  had 


IV.]  THE  PENTATEUCH :    ITS  SOURCES  19 

already  been  committed  to  writing  (Num.  xxi.  14).  But 
what  of  the  main  narrative  of  the  Pentateuch  ?  Obviously 
no  writer  could  have  written  a  narrative  extending  over 
thousands  of  years  out  of  his  own  personal  knowledge : 
he  must  have  written  it  either  from  hearsay,  or  on  the  basis 
of  written  historical  documents.  In  the  latter  case  it 
would  be  reasonable  to  expect  that  he  pursued  the  historical 
method  discussed  in  chapter  ii.,  and  therefore  that,  as  he 
certainly  incorporated  the  actual  words  of  previously 
existing  legal  documents  and  poems,  so  he  also  incorporated 
the  actual  words  of  previously  written  historical  narratives. 
If  he  actually  did  so,  the  different  documents  incorporated 
in,  and  his  own  contributions  to,  the  narrative  should  be 
more  or  less  clearly  distinguishable  by  differences  of  style 
and  points  of  view.  If  such  differences  of  style  were 
Umited  to  the  narrative  of  the  pre-Mosaic  age,  the  fact 
would  create  some  presumption  in  favour  of  the  theory 
that  Moses,  or  a  contemporary  of  his,  composed  the 
narrative  down  to  his  age  from  documents,  but  the  narrative 
of  his  own  age  from  his  own  personal  knowledge ;  on  the 
other  hand,  if  the  differences  extend  throughout  the  entire 
work  down  to  the  death  of  Moses,  if  in  particular  the  narra- 
tive of  Moses'  death  is,  though  distinguishable  in  style  from 
some  parts,  indistinguishable  from  others,  we  should 
necessarily  find  in  this  fact  independent  proof  that  Moses, 
though  he  may  have  been  the  author  of  works  cited  in  it, 
was  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  itself. 

Starting  from  the  assumption  that  Moses  was  the  author 
of  the  Pentateuch,  Jean  Astruc  in  the  eighteenth  century  ,\ 
was  the  first  to  attempt  a  systematic  literary  analysis  of 
the  narratives  of  Genesis  together  with  Ex.  i.-ii.,  where 
alone  in  the  Pentateuch,  on  the  prevailing  assumption  of 
Mosaic  authorship,  it  was  reasonable  either  to  suspect  or  to 
admit  the  incorporation  of  previously  existing  historical 
narratives.  In  his  work,  published  in  1753,  and  entitled 
Conjectures  sur  les  mimoires  originaux  dont  il  paroit  que 
Moyse  e^est  servi  pour  composer  le  livre  de  la  GenisCt  he 
argued  that  Genesis  was  mainly  derived  from  two  docu- 


20     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

ments,  one  of  which  was  characterised  by  its  use  of  the 
divine  term  Elohim  (God),  and  the  other  by  its  use  of  the 
Hebrew  proper  name  for  God — Yahweh. 

In  spite  of  some  recent  attempts  to  show  that  the  Hebrew 
textual  tradition  in  respect  of  the  use  of  the  divine  names 
is  thoroughly  untrustworthy,  Astruc's  conjectures,  though 
very  inadequate,  have  been,  so  far  as  his  fimdamental 
thesis  is  concerned,  strongly  confirmed  by  subsequent 
observation  :  the  historical  narrative  of  Genesis,  though  not 
of  Genesis  alone,  is  composite,  not  simple ;  it  rests  on 
previously  existing  sources;  and  these  sources  were  not 
merely  consulted  for  information,  but  were  in  large  measure 
cited  word  for  word,  even  as  are  the  books  of  Samuel  and 
Kings  largely  cited  word  for  word  in  Chronicles  (pp.  8-11). 

Jean  Astruc,  an  upholder  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch,  used  the  differences  in  the  use  of  the  divino 
names  as  his  clue  to  the  documents  on  which  Genesis  rested. 
Yet  it  would  be  quite  a  delusion  to  suppose  that  the  theory 
that  the  narrative  of  the  Pentateuch  is  not  a  simple 
narrative,  but  that  it  is  throughout  compiled  from  more 
than  one  previously  existing  document,  rests  merely,  or 
even  principally,  on  the  differing  use  of  the  divine  names. 
The  theory  that  different  documents  are  incorporated  in 
the  Pentateuch  rests  on  a  vastly  wider  basis ;  it  is  only 
the  degree  of  detail  with  which  the  incorporated  documents 
can  be  separated  from  one  another  that  would  be  affected 
even  if  recent  attempts  to  prove  the  complete  untrust- 
worthiness  of  the  textual  tradition  of  the  divine  names  had 
been  successful ;  but  this  they  have  not  been.  There  are, 
it  is  true,  a  few  passages  in  which  the  Jewish  and  Samaritan 
recensions  of  the  Hebrew  text  differ  from  one  another,  one 
reading  Yahweh,  the  other  Elohim  ;  but  the  agreement  of 
these  two  recensions  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  is  strong 
proof  of  the  substantial  accuracy  of  the  tradition  in  this 
matter.  It  is  true,  again,  that  the  Greek  version  often  has 
^€os  where  the  Hebrew  text  has  Yahweh,  and  Kvptoi  where 
the  Hebrew  has  Elohim,  though  the  normal  Greek  equiva- 
lents are  Kvpio%  ior  Yahweh  and  ^c($?  for  Elohim  ;  true,  also, 


IV.]  THE  PENTATEUCH :   ITS  SOURCES  21 

that  in  most  cases  the  Greek  MSS.  differ  among  themselves, 
80  that  there  is  more  or  less  imcertainty  in  determining 
whether  the  original  Greek  text  read  the  one  or  the  other 
term,  and  whether  it  agreed  with  or  differed  from  the 
Hebrew  text.  But  before,  in  a  case  of  this  kind,  a  version 
can  be  used  either  in  support  of  or  against  evidence  in  the 
original  language,  it  is  necessary  to  determine  the  idiosyn- 
crasies of  the  version.  Was  Kvptos  not  only  the  normal, 
but  the  invariable  equivalent  of  Elohim  adopted  by  the 
original  translators  ?  As  a  matter  of  fact  there  are  reasons 
for  believing  that  kv/oios  was  not  in  all  cases  used  in  the 
version  where  Yahweh  stood  in  the  Hebrew. 

The  general  conclusion  that  the  narrative  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch  is  composite,  and  results  from  methods  similar  to 
those  employed  in  Chronicles,  in  Tatian's  Diatessaron  and 
in  many  other  specimens  of  Semitic  Uterature  (see  ch.  ii.), 
rests  on  a  group  of  phenomena  which  may  be  classified 
with  illustrations  as  follows  : — 

1.  The  same  incidents  or  episodes  are  narrated  more 
than  once,  and  sometimes  with  inconsistent  variations. 
Thus  the  story  of  Creation  is  told  in  Gen.  i.-ii.  4a,  and 
again  in  ii.  4b-22  :  in  the  first  story,  man  (male  and  female) 
is  represented  as  the  final  and  crowning  work  of  creation ; 
in  the  second,  man  (male)  is  created  before  plants  or  animals 
or  woman.  The  change  of  Jacob's  name  to  Israel  is  re- 
corded in  Gen.  xxxii.  27  f.,  and  also  in  Gen.  xxxv.  10  ;  the 
death  of  Aaron  on  mount  Hor  is  recorded  in  Num.  xxxiii.  38, 
and  his  death  at  Moserah  in  Deut.  x.  6b  ;  the  separation  of 
Levi  from  the  rest  of  the  tribes  in  Num.  iii.  5  ff.  (cp.  viii.), 
and  in  Deut.  x.  8.  Some  repetitions  might  indeed  be 
attributed  to  the  fact  that  similar  incidents  actually 
occurred  twice.  Yet  this  hypothesis  is  no  natural,  even 
where  it  is  an  abstractly  possible,  explanation  of  any  of  the 
foregoing,  or  of  the  three  records  of  the  laughter  that  gave 
its  name  to  Isaac  (Gen.  xvii.  17-19,  xviii.  12,  xxi.  6),  the 
two  narratives  of  Hagar's  expulsion  from  Abraham's  tent 
(xvi.  4-14,  xxi.  9-21),  the  two  narratives  of  the  revelation  of 
the  name  of  Yahweh  to  Moses  (Ex.  iii.  14  f .,  vi.  2  f .),  the  two 


X 


22     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch 

narratives  of  the  appointment  of  Aaron  as  Moses'  prophet 
or  spokesman  (Ex.  iv.  10-16,  vi.  29-vii.  2),  or  of  many 
others. 

2.  Within  narratives  at  present  continuous,  differences 
occur  that  point  to  a  fusion  (such  as  regularly  takes  place 
in  Tatian's  DicUessaron)  of  originally  independent  narratives 
of  the  same  event.  Such  are  the  statements  in  the  story 
of  the  Flood  that  *  the  rain  was  upon  the  earth  forty  days 
and  forty  nights'  (Gen.  vii.  12),  and  that  'the  waters  pre- 
vailed upon  the  earth  an  himdred  and  fifty  days  '  (vii.  24) ; 
and  again  the  commandment  to  Noah  to  take  into  the  ark 
one  pair  of  each  of  all  the  kinds  of  animals  (vi.  19),  and  the 
commandment  in  vii.  2  to  take  seven  (pairs)  of  all  kinds  of 
clean,  and  one  pair  of  all  kinds  of  unclean  animals. 

So  again  in  the  story  of  the  Spies  we  find  conflicting 
descriptions  of  the  extent  of  country  that  was  visited,  and 
of  the  report  which  the  Spies  brought  back  ;  according 
to  Num.  xiii.  2,  21  the  Spies  were  commanded  to  spy  out, 
and  they  actually  spied  out,  the  whole  land  of  Canaan 
from  the  southern  border  to  the  entrance  of  Hamath  on 
the  far  northern  border  (cp.  e.g.  Num.  xxxiv.  8)  of  what 
was  subsequently  the  land  of  Israel  and  Judah ;  according 
to  Num.  xiii.  17b-22  they  were  to  go  up  into  the  Negeb, 
i.e.  the  dry  country  in  the  south  of  Judah,  and  they  did 
actually  go  as  far  north  as  Hebron,  which,  however,  lies 
some  twenty-five  miles  south  of  Jerusalem,  itself  situated 
in  the  south  of  the  land  of  promise.  The  report  of  the  Spies 
was,  according  to  Num.  xiii.  26-28,  that  the  land  was 
fertile,  but  its  inhabitants  invincible,  and  its  cities  im- 
pregnable ;  according  to  Num.  xiii.  33  the  Spies  reported 
that  the  land  was  insufficiently  productive  to  support  its 
inhabitants. 

3.  Very  marked  differences  of  style  and  diction  are 
observable  in  different  parts  of  the  narrative  :  moreover, 
such  differences  of  style  coincide  with  the  Umits  of  such 
repetitions  of  episodes  as  have  been  given  under  (1),  or 
with  the  parts  of  continuous  narratives  (see  under  2)  that 
conflict  with  one  another  in  substance.    For  example, 


IV.]  THE  PENTATEUCH :    ITS  SOURCES  23 

throughout  Gen.  i.-ii.  4a  the  word  hard,  to  create,  is 
repeatedly  used  ;  in  Gen.  ii.  4b- 22  the  same  idea  is  expressed 
several  times,  but  by  different  words — 'asah  or  yasar.  Again 
in  Ex.  iv.  10-16  anoki,  one  form  of  the  Hebrew  pronoun 
of  the  first  person,  occurs  five  times,  but  the  other  form, 
am,  does  not  occur  once,  whereas  in  Ex.  vi.  29-vii.  3  ani 
occurs  four  times,  but  anoki  not  once.  So  also  in  the 
conflate  story  of  the  Flood  '  male  and  female '  in  Gen.  vi.  19, 
vii.  16  is  zakar  un^kebah,  but  in  vii.  2  *  the  male  and  his 
female '  is  Hsh  vfishto,  Hterally  a  man  and  his  mfe.  The 
last  illustration  serves  also  as  one  among  many  differences 
extending  beyond  vocabulary  to  general  characteristics  of 
style ;  of  two  stories  of  the  same  episode  one  is  often 
characterised  by  greater  vividness  or  picturesqueness ;  so 
in  the  story  of  the  Spies  over  against  the  bald  command 
*  to  spy  out '  the  land  (Num.  xiii.  2,  17a),  stands  the  more 
detailed,  vivid,  and  picturesque  terms  of  the  commission 
in  xiii.  17b-20. 

4.  Differences  in  rehgious  conceptions  also  characterise 
sections  that  are  distinguished  from  one  another  both  as 
being  independent  narratives  of  the  same  incident,  and  as 
marked  by  difference  of  style  and  diction.  In  Gen.  i.-ii.  4a. 
creation  proceeds  simply  and  directly  by  the  fiat  of  God ; 
in  Gen.  ii.  4a.- 15  creation  proceeds,  so  to  speak,  by  experi- 
ment ;  it  is  only  by  experiment  that  it  is  discovered  that 
man  requires  woman  as  his  mate.  Noticeable  in  the  story 
of  the  Flood  is  the  ignoring  in  part  of  it  of  the  distinction 
between  clean  and  unclean  animals. 

Thus  far  we  have  seen  that  the  Pentateuch  rests  on 
previously  existing  poems,  on  previously  existing  legal 
documents,  and  on  previously  existing  historical  narratives. 
At  this  point  it  will  be  convenient  to  give  illustrations  of 
these  further  facts  :  (1)  as  the  narrative  of  the  Pentateuch 
contains  conflicting  statements  of  fact,  so  the  laws  of  the 
Pentateuch  contain  conflicting  rules  of  practice ;  (2)  as 
differences  of  style  accompany  different  narratives  of  the 
same  incident,  so  also  they  accompany  different  laws 
on  the   same   subject ;     (3)   certain  groups  of  laws  are 


V 


24     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT?  [oa 

associated  with  certain  groups  of  narratives  by  a  common 
standpoint,  or  common  featm'es  of  style. 

The  laws  of  Ex.  xxi.  1-6  and  Deut.  xv.  12-18,  in  spite  of 
some  sUght  differences,  agree  in  permitting  the  Hebrews 
to  hold  a  fellow  Hebrew  as  a  bond-servant  (R.V.  marg.), 
or  slave,  for  a  period  of  years,  and  in  certain  cases  for  life  ; 
but  Lev.  XXV.  39-46  absolutely  forbids  the  enslavement  of 
Hebrews  for  any  period,  and  permits  only  that  of  foreigners. 

As  the  Pentateuch  contains  three  laws  of  slavery,  so 
also  it  contains  three  laws  of  homicide :  on  the  main 
point,  that  intentional  and  accidental  homicide  are  to  be 
differently  treated,  all  three  are  in  agreement ;  but  on 
the  procedure  they  differ :  according  to  Ex.  xxi.  12-14 
the  homicide  who  takes  refuge  at  the  altar  is,  if  a 
wilful  murderer,  not  to  be  allowed,  but,  if  his  act  was 
accidental,  he  is  to  be  allowed,  the  asylum  of  the  altar  (im- 
pUcit  in  V.  13,  cp.  v.  14).  Deut.  xix.  1-13  and  Num.  xxxv. 
9-24  agree  as  against  Exodus  in  saying  nothing  about 
Yahweh's  altar^  but  in  enjoining  the  setting  apart  of  a 
certain  definite  numbers  of  cities  in  which  the  accidental 
homicide  is  to  remain  secure,  not  forfeiting  his  life,  whereas 
the  wilful  murderer,  though  he  flees  for  refuge  to  one  of 
these  cities,  is  to  be  dehvered  up  to  death.  The  law  in 
Numbers  is  certainly  more  full  and  detailed  than  in 
Deuteronomy,  and  certain  differences  between  the  two 
are  probably  impUcit,  but  these  cannot  be  discussed  here. 

As  illustrations  of  differences  of  style  accompanying 
differences  of  law  on  the  same  subject,  we  may  note  that 
the  technical  term,  *  cities  of  refuge,'  which  occurs  several 
times  in  Num.  xxxv.  9-34,  is  never  used  in  Deuteronomy, 
though  the  law  there  also  refers  several  times  to  *  cities  * 
that  were  to  serve  as  a  refuge.  Note  also  the  different 
modes  of  expressing  the  absence  of  intention  :  *  if  a  man 
lie  not  in  wait,  but  God  deliver  him  into  his  hand  *  (Ex.  xxi. 
13),  *  through  error'  (Num.  xxxv.  11,  15),  'unawares* 
(Deut.  xix.  4) ;  so  in  the  law  of  the  slaves  note  the  varia- 
tions :  *  a  Hebrew  '  (Ex.  xxi.  2),  *  thy  brother  the  Hebrew' 
(Deut.  XV.  12),  '  thy  brother '  (Lev.  xxv.  39). 


IV.]  THE  PENTATEUCH :    ITS  SOURCES  26 

The  laws  of  tithe  in  Num.  xviii.  21-32,  Deut.  xiv.  22-29, 
partly  because  they  conflict  so  remarkably  with  one  another 
in  substance,  offer  relatively  few  points  in  which  similarity 
and  distinction  of  style  can  be  tested ;  but  they  afford  an 
illustration  of  one  point  of  difference  which  recurs  again 
and  again  when  the  laws  in  Deuteronomy  are  compared 
with  laws  elsewhere.  In  Deut.  xiv.  22-29  the  phrase 
*  Yahweh  thy  God'  occurs  seven  times;  in  Num.  xviii.  21-32 
neither  this  nor  the  variant  *  Yahweh  your  God,'  which  the 
prevailing  use  there  of  the  plural  would  have  required, 
occurs  a  single  time ;  on  the  other  hand,  '  Yahweh  '  simply, 
which  occurs  not  once  in  Deut.  xiv.  22-29,  occurs  five 
times  in  Num.  xviii.  21-32. 

The  last-mentioned  point  of  style  will  also  serve  as  a 
good  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  one  group  of  laws 
and  narratives  is  marked  off  from  another  group  ;  the  use 
of  *  Yahweh  thy  (our,  your)  God '  occurs  upwards  of  three 
hundred  times  in  Deuteronomy,  in  the  historical  retrospect 
(see  e.g.  i.  19-46,  ii.  26-37)  as  well  as  in  the  laws  ;  the  phrases 
occur,  though  with  far  less  frequency,  elsewhere.  Common, 
again,  to  laws  and  narratives  in  Deuteronomy,  but  occurring 
nowhere  else,  is  the  combination  of  the  three  terms  *  com 
and  wine  and  oil '  (e.g.  vii.  13,  xiv.  23)  ;  and  '  with  all  thy 
(your)  heart  and  with  all  thy  (your)  soul '  occurs  nine  times 
in  Deut.  (e.g,  iv.  29,  vi.  6,  xiii.  3),  but  nowhere  else  in  the 
Pentateuch. 

At  this  stage  of  our  discussion  when  no  attempt  has  yet 
been  made  to  indicate  more  than  an  occasional  analysis  of 
the  narrative  of  the  first  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch, 
it  would  be  impossible  even  to  illustrate  adequately  the 
styhstic  Hnks  between  elements  in  these  narratives  and 
any  of  the  laws ;  but  it  may  even  now  prove  suggestive 
to  draw  attention  to  certain  pecuHar  or  characteristic 
usages  in  Gen.  i.-ii.  4a  which  do  not  recur,  for  example, 
in  the  different  account  of  Gen.  ii.  4b-22,  nor  in  the  laws 
of  Ex.  xxi.-xxiii.,  but  do  recur  in  laws  in  Leviticus ;  we 
may  notice,  then,  '  after  its  (their)  kind  '  ten  times  in  Gen.  i. 
(e.gr.  V.  ll)andalsoinLev.  xi.  14,  15,  16,  19;  the  verb  Ho 


t 


26     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

swarm  *  (R.V.  *  bring  forth  abundantly/  *  creep ')  in  Gen.  i. 
20,  and  also  in  Lev.  xi.  29,  41,  42,  43,  46,  and  the  cognate 
noun  *  swarming  things '  (in  R.V.  variously  rendered)  in 
Gen.  i.  20  and  also  in  Lev.  v.  2,  xi.  10,  20 ;  '  for  food ' 
(I*  ochlah)  in  Gen.  i.  29-30  and  also  in  Lev.  xi.  39,  xxv.  6 ; 
*  male '.  and  *  female,'  as  in  the  phrase  of  Gen.  vi.  19,  but 
not  of  Gen.  vii.  2  (see  above  p.  23),  in  Gren  i.  27  and  also 
in  Lev.  iii.  1,  6,  xii.  7,  xv.  33. 

It  is  impossible  here  to  reproduce  and  discuss  further 
the  actual  details  of  style  which  have  been  observed  and 
classified  ;  but  as  a  result  of  investigation  it  has  been 
found  that  the  Pentateuch  can  be  analysed  into  three 
great  masses  of  matter  easily  distinguishable  from  one 
another  in  style  :  one  style  is  found  to  separate  off  nearly 
the  whole  of  Deuteronomy  from  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch  ; 
it  pervades  practically  the  whole  of  that  book  except  the  / 
poem  in  ch.  xxxiii.,  a  few  verses  in  ch.  xxxi.  (14  f .,  23)  and 
most  of  ch.  xxxi  v.,  but  appears,  at  most,  very  sporadically 
elsewhere  in  the  Pentateuch.     Another  style  marks  off  9 

o  most  of  the  concluding  parts  of  Exodus  (chs.  xxv.-xxxi., 
xxxiv.  29-xl.  38),  the  whole  of  Leviticus,  Num.  i.-x.  28,  and 

{  considerable  parts  of  Genesis  (including  i.  1-ii.  4a),  of  the 
first  half  of  Exodus,  and  of  the  remainder  of  Numbers.  Easily  9 
distinguishable  in  style  from  either  of  the  foregoing,  and  "^ 
at  the  same  time  in  some  measure  bound  together  by 
common  quahties,  is  practically  all  that  remains  of  the 
Pentateuch.  On  the  other  hand,  along  with  common 
features,  there  are  also  some  differences  in  this  remain- 
der. For  these  three  main  elements  in  the  Pentateuch,  or 
for  the  writers  severally  responsible  for  them,  it  is  now 
customary  to  use  the  symbols  D,  P,  JE,  viz.  D  for  all  (save 

-^  the  slight  exceptions  indicated)  of  Deuteronomy,  P  for 
Leviticus  and  all  thereto  related,  JE  for  the  remainder, 
the  two  elements  in  which  remainder  are  separately 
indicated  by  J  and  E. 

But  the  same  three  types  of  style  re-appear  in  the  book 
of  Joshua,  and  it  seems  that  the  narrative  of  that  book 
rests  upon  the  same  main  sources  as  the  narrative  of  the 


ivj  THE  PENTATEUCH :   ITS  SOURCES  27 

Pentateuch.  For  this  reason  the  Pentateuch  with  Joshua 
is  frequently  comprehended  under  the  term  Hexateuch. 
Yet  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  the  Pentateuch  with 
Joshua  ever  constituted  an  independent  literary  work  ;  if 
it  did  so,  at  some  stage  in  the  history,  Joshua  must  have 
been  removed  from  this  larger  work ;  but  of  this  process 
we  have  no  evidence,  nor  even  indirect  proof. 

This,  then,  we  may  say :  the  Pentateuch  is  the  final  \ 
hterary  unity  known  alike  to  Jewish  and  Samaritan 
tradition ;  the  Jews  subsequently  adopted  Joshua  with 
many  other  books  as  Scripture  though  not  as  part  of  the 
Law ;  the  Samaritan  Scriptures  consisted  of  the  Pentateuch 
alone.  At  the  same  time,  the  sources  underlying  the 
Pentateuch  and  Joshua  are  common ;  in  other  words, 
the  scope  of  the  sources  and  of  the  final  literary  unities 
is  not  the  same  ;  the  Pentateuch  carries  down  the  history 
no  further  than  the  death  of  the  law-giver  Moses,  the 
sources  were  histories  of  national  origins,  and  carried  down 
the  story  to  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  and  some  of  them 
perhaps  to  a  yet  later  period  (see  below  pp.  62-73). 

The  extent  of  D  in  the  Pentateuch  has  already  been 
indicated  (p.  26).  In  Joshua,  according  to  Dr.  Driver's 
analysis,  the  following  passages  are  derived  from  D*  (see 
below  p.  42),  i.,  ii.  10,  11  ;  iii.  2-4,  6-9  ;  iv.  lib,  12,  14,  21- 
24 ;  V.  1,  4-7  ;  viii.  30-35  ;  ix.  1,  2,  9b,  10,  24,  25,  27b ;  x. 
8,  12a,  14b,  25,  28-43  (ii.  2f.,  6f.,  8b.) ;  xi.  10-23 ;  xii., 
xviii.  7  (xx.  4,  5,  6) ;  xxi.  43-45 ;  xxii.  1-6  (7-8) ;  xxiii. 
xxiv.  lib,  13,  31. 

Again,  according  to  Dr.  Driver's  analysis,  fihe  parts  of 
the  Hexateuch  derived  jErom  P  are  : — 

Genesis  i.  1-ii.  4a ;  v.  i.-28,  30-32 ;  vi.  9-22 ;  vii.  6,  11, 
13-16a,  17a  (except  jTortt/  days),  18-21,  24 ;  viii.  l-2a,  3b-6, 
13a,  14-19  ;  ix.  1-17,  28-29  ;  x.  1-7, 20, 22f,  31f. ;  xi.  10-27, 
31-32 ;  xii.  4b,  5 ;  xiii.  6,  llb-12a ;  xvi.  la,  3,  15,  16 ;  xvii., 
xix.  29 ;  xxi.  lb,  2b-5 ;  xxiii,  xxv.  5-lla,  12-17,  19-20, 26b ; 
xxvi.  34-35 ;  xxvii.  46-xxviii.  9 ;  xxix.  24,  29  (fragments 
in  XXX.  la,  4a,  9b,  22a) ;  xxxi.  18b ;  xxxiii.  18a ;  xxxiv. 
l-2a,  4,  6.  8-10,  13-18,  20-24,  25  (partly),  27-29 ;  xxxv. 


28     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ck 

9-13,  15,  22b-29 ;  xxxvi.  (in  the  main) ;  xxxvii.  1,  2a, 
xU.  46 ;  xlvi.  6-27 ;  xlvii.  6-6a  (LXX.),  7-11,  27b-28 ;  xlviii. 
3-6,  7  ?  xUx.  la,  28b-33  ;  L  12-13. 

Exodus  i.  1-6,  7, 13, 14  ;  ii.  23b-25  ;  vi.  2-vii.  13, 19,  20a  ; 
vii.  21b-22 ;  viii.  5-7,  15b-19 ;  ix.  8-12 ;  xi.  9,  10 ;  xii. 
1-20,  28,  37a,  40,  41,  43-61 ;  xiii.  1,  2,  20 ;  xiv.  1-4,  8-9, 
16-18,  21a,  21C-23,  26,  27a,  28a,  29  ;  xvi.  1-3,  6-24,  31-36  ; 
xvii.  la;  xix  l-2a;  xxiv.  16-18a;  xxv.  1-xxxi.  18a; 
xxxiv.  29-35 ;  xxxv.-xl. 

Leviticus  i.-xvi.  (xvii.-xxvi.  largely  H :  see  p.  41),  xxvii. 

Numbers  i.  1-x.  28,  34  ;  xiii.  l-17a,  21,  25,  26  (to  Paran) ; 
xiii.  32a ;  xiv.  (1,  2),  5-7,  10,  26-30,  34-38 ;  xv,  xvi.  la, 
2b-7a;  (7b-ll)  (16,  17),  18-24,  27a,  32b,  35  (36-40), 
41-50 ;  xvii.-xix.,  xx.  la  (to  month),  2,  3b-4,  6-13,  22-29 ; 
xxi.  4a  (to  Hor)y  10,  11 ;  xxii.  1 ;  xxv.  6-18 ;  xxvi.- 
xxxi,  xxxii.  18,  19,  28-32  (with  traces  in  xxxii.  1-17,  20- 
27) ;  xxxiii.-xxxvi. 

Deuteronomy  i.  3  ;  xxxii.  48-52  ;  xxxiv.  la  (in  the  main), 
\   5b,  7a,  8,  9. 

Joshua  iv.  13, 15-17, 19  ;  v.  10-12  ;  vii.  1 ;  ix.  15b,  17-21 ; 
xiii.  15-32 ;  xiv.  1-5 ;  xv.  1-13,  20-44,  48-62 ;  xvi.  4-8 ; 
xvii.  la,  3,  4,  9a,  9c-10a ;  xviii.  1,  11-28 ;  xix.  1-8,  10-46, 
48-51 ;  XX.  1-3  (except  *  and  unawares '),  6a  (from  until 
to  jiLdgment),  7-9  ;  xxi.  1-42  (xxii.  9-34). 

As  already  observed,  practically  the  whole  of  the  re- 
mainder of  the  Pentateuch,  when  D  and  P  have  been 
eliminated,  in  so  far  as  it  rests  on  sources  and  is  not  editorial, 
is  derived  from  JE.  It  must  suffice  here  to  define  in  detail 
only  some  of  the  longer,  or  more  important,  or  more  easily 
distinguishable  passages  derived  from  the  separate  sources, 
J  and  E.  To  J  may  be  ascribed  substantially  all  that  re- 
mains, after  the  removal  of  P  (see  above),  of  Gen.  i.-xiii., 
xvi.,  xviii.,  xix.,  xxiv.-xxvi.,  xlvi.  28-xlvii.  31  (except  xlvii. 
12),  xlix.  1-1. 14;  Ex.  viii.  1-ix.  7  ;  also  Gen.  xxxviii.,  xxxix., 
xiii.  38-xliv.  34  (except  xliii.  14  and  the  last  sentence  of 
xliii.  23);  Ex.  iii.  2-4  (to  see),  5,  7,  8,  16-18;  iv.  1-6; 
V.  6-vi.  1  ;  X.  1-11,  To  E  may  be  ascribed  Gen.  xx.  1-17  ; 
xxi.  6-32 ;  xxii.  1-13,  19 ;  xl.  1-xlii.  37  (except  xl.  lb,  3b. 


IV.]  THE  PENTATEUCH:   ITS  SOURCES  29 

15b ;  xli.  14  j   xlii.  27-28) ;   xlv.  1-xlvi.  6  (in  the  main)  ; 
Ex.  ii.  1-14  ;  iii.  1,  4b,  6,  9-15,  19-22  ;  xviii.  (in  the  main). 

Much  even  of  the  analysis  as  here  indicated  of  the 
composite  JE  into  its  components,  J  and  E,  would,  indeed, 
become  uncertain,  if  the  argument  from  the  differing  use 
of  Yahweh  and  Elohim  were  proved  unsound  (see  above 
p.  20),  though  the  separation  of  the  Pentateuch  into  the 
three  sources  JE,  P,  and  D  would  remain  substantially 
unaffected.  But  in  concluding  this  discussion  of  the  sources 
and  the  analysis  it  may  be  convenient  briefly  to  indicate  a 
little  more  fully  what  the  argument  from  the  use  of  the 
divine  names  is,  and  how  far  it  carries  us. 

The  Pentateuch  itself  gives  us  reason  to  expect  a  dis- 
crimination in  the  use  of  the  divine  names,  for  as  to  the 
origin  and  use  of  the  divine  name  Yahweh  two  theories 
are  directly  stated  or  implied.  According  to  Gen.  iv.  26  (J) 
familiarity  with  the  name  Yahweh  extends  back  to  the 
early  days  of  mankind  ;  after  the  birth  of  Adam's  grandson 
Enosh  it  is  recorded  that  *  then  men  began  to  call  upon  the 
name  of  Yahweh.'  According  to  Ex.  vi.  2  (P),  on  the  other 
hand,  the  name  Yahweh  was  imknown  to  the  Hebrews 
before  the  time  of  Moses  :  *  And  God  spake  unto  Moses,  and 
said  imto  him,  I  am  Yahweh ;  and  I  appeared  imto 
Abraham,  imto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob  as  El  Shaddai,  but 
by  my  name  Yahweh  I  was  not  made  known  to  him.'  In 
Ex.  iii.  13-15  (E)  we  have  a  different  account  of  the  revela- 
tion to  Moses,  which  nevertheless  agrees  with  Ex.  vi.  2  in 
representing  Yahweh  as  a  name  unknown  to  the  Hebrews 
before  Moses ;  Ex.  vi.  2  directly  asserts  that  it  was  un- 
known to  them  before,  and  Ex.  iii.  13-16  shows  us  the  name, 
so  to  speak,  in  the  making. 

We  have  thus  three  accounts  of  the  origin  of  the  name, 
pointing,  as  other  threefold  repetitions  point,  to  at  least 
three  sources  underlying  the  Pentateuchal  narrative. 
According  to  one  of  these  sources  the  name  was  primeval ; 
according  to  the  other  two  it  was  first  revealed  to  the 
Hebrews  in  the  days  of  Moses.  Now  an  accurate  and 
particular  writer  who  held  the  latter  theory  might  reason- 


30     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

ably  be  expected  to  avoid  the  use  of  Yahweh  before  his 
story  of  the  revelation  of  the  name,  using  instead  the  general 
term  God  (Elohim),  or  other  names  which  he  regarded  as 
primeval,  such  as  El  Shaddai.  We  might  surmise,  there- 
fore, that  the  narratives  in  Genesis  and  Ex.  i.  ii.  which  use 
Yahweh  are  from  the  author  of  the  theory  impUed  in 
Gen.  iv.  26,  and  narratives  that  use  Elohim  from  one  of 
the  other  two  sources,  but  from  which  of  the  two  this 
criterion  by  itself  could  not  of  course  determine.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  without  the  use  of  this  criterion  P,  the 
author  of  Ex.  vi.  2,  can  be  easily  distinguished  from  JE. 
The  use  of  the  divine  names  is,  therefore,  only  of  im- 
portance in  distinguishing  throughout  Grenesis  and  in  Ex. 
i.  ii.  the  work  of  J,  the  Yahwist,  who  held  by  the  primeval 
antiquity  of  the  name  Yahweh,  from  that  of  E,  the  Elohist, 
who  held  that  it  was  first  revealed  to  Moses.  After  the 
revelation  to  Moses  P  naturally  enough  employs  Yahweh ; 
and  so  does  E  to  some  extent,  though  throughout  his  work  he 
seems  to  betray  a  relative  preference  for  Elohim.  The  use 
of  the  criterion,  which  is  of  Umited  value  in  Genesis  and 
Ex.  i.  ii.,  becomes  almost  neghgible  in  the  rest  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch.  Astruc  met  with  the  success  that  he  did  in  his 
analysis  of  Genesis,  because  in  Genesis  J,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  P  and  E,  on  the  other,  appear  to  have  been  remarkably 
consistent  in  their  use  of  Yahweh  and  Elohim  respectively  : 
he  could  not  go  further  and  distinguish  the  three  main 
sources  of  Genesis  because  the  single  criterion  only  sufficed 
to  distinguish  two,  and  even  had  he  been  free  from  the 
assumption  of  Mosaic  authorship  he  would  have  been 
unable  to  distinguish  sources  at  all  in  the  later  parts  of  the 
Pentateuch,  because  the  criterion  ceases  to  be  of  consistent 
applicability  after  Ex.  ilL,  vi 


?.J     THE  PENTATEUCH ;   DATES  OF  THE  SOURCES       81 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  PENTATEUCH:   DATES  OF  THE  SOURCES 

Leaving  over  till  the  next  chapter  the  question  whether 
D  and  P  are  respectively  the  works  of  a  single  writer,  and 
JE  of  two  writers  and  no  more,  we  shall  here  inquire  how 
far,  and  by  what  kinds  of  argument,  it  is  possible  to  deter- 
mine either  the  relative  or  the  absolute  dates  of  what  in 
any  case  may  be  regarded  as  the  main  work  comprehended 
under  the  symbols  D  and  P  and  J  and  E. 

One  point  follows  immediately,  if  the  conclusion  (p.  26) 
be  sound  that  the  sources  of  the  Pentateuch  reappear  in 
Joshua ;  if  P  and  J  and  E  related  the  story  of  the  settle- 
ment after  the  death  of  Moses,  they  are  necessarily  one  and 
all  post-Mosaic. 

In  greater  detail  D  falls  first  for  discussion.  In  the 
year  621  B.C.  a  *  book  of  the  law '  was  found  in  the  Temple 
at  Jerusalem,  and,  as  a  result,  great  changes  in  religious 
practice  took  place.  Such  in  brief  is  the  story  of  2  Kings 
xxii.-xxiii. 

We  turn  to  Deuteronomy,  and  we  find  within  it 
*  a  book  of  the  law  *  that  enjoins  what  Josiah  effected : 
for  example,  the  law  enjoins  the  destruction  of  the  high 
places,  and  Josiah  destroyed  them  ;  the  law  prescribes  that 
all  sacrifices  shall  be  offered  in  one  place  only,  and  Josiah 
did  his  best  by  destroying  altars  outside  Jerusalem  to 
secure  that  all  sacrifices  should  be  offered  on  the  Temple 
altar  in  Jerusalem ;  the  law  forbids  the  Passover  to  be 
observed  in  any  of  the  '  gates,'  i.e.  the  (provincial)  cities, 
and  commands  that  it  shall  be  observed  in  one  place  only  ; 
in  621  the  Passover  was  observed  in  Jerusalem  (2  Kings 


V 


32     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ca 

xxii.  23),  and  thus  for  the  first  time  in  history  was  it  kept 
according  to  the  recently  discovered  book  of  the  covenant 
(2  Kings  xxiii.  21,  22). 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  in  form  Deuteronomy  consists 
of  speeches  of  Moses  and  does  not  define  Jerusalem  by 
name  as  the  one  place  in  which  the  people  were  to  sacrifice, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  some  even  of  the  early  Christian 
Fathers,  including  Jerome,  already  identified  the  Book  of 
the  Law  discovered  in  621  with  the  book  of  Deuteronomy. 

It  may  be  that  the  book  discovered  was  not  the  whole 
of  Deuteronomy  as  we  now  possess  it ;  a  part  might  more 
easily  have  been  read  twice  (2  Kings  xxii.  8,  10)  in  a  short 
time  than  the  whole  of  it.  But  it  is  altogether  improbable 
that  the  book  discovered  was  the  entire  Pentateuch ;  not 
only  is  it  unlikely  that  the  book  was  so  large ;  but  some 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch  contain  laws  confiicting  with  the 
very  laws  that  guided  Josiah's  practice,  and  a  long 
miscellaneous  work  such  as  the  whole  Pentateuch  would 
have  been  far  less  Hkely  than  Deuteronomy  to  create  the 
terror  of  the  king :  Deuteronomy,  even  in  its  present  extent, 
consists  mainly  of  laws  and  of  admonitions,  and  particularly 
of  warnings  as  to  what  will  befaU  those  who  fail  to  act 
upon  the  laws. 

But  how  long  before  621  had  the  book  been  written  ? 
The  narrative  gives  us  no  direct  answer  to  the  question, 
nor  is  it  of  the  first  importance  to  determine  it.  Other 
evidence  confirms  the  more  important  conclusion  that  it 
was  first  jmblished  then.  For  example,  from  this  time 
onward,  the  singularly  well-marked  style  of  Deuteronomy 
affects  other  writers,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Deutero-Isaiah, 
the  compiler  of  Kings.  On  the  other  hand,  the  prophetic 
writings  of  the  eighth  century,  of  Hosea,  Amos,  Isaiah, 
Micah,  show  no  traces  of  it. 

If,  then,  D  makes  its  first  appearance  in  Jewish  history 
towards  the  end  of  the  seventh  century  B.C.,  when  did  JE 
and  P  do  so  ? — before  or  after  ? 

That  JE  is  prior  to  D  is  a  matter  of  general  agreement ; 
and  the  now  prevalent  critical  opinion  is  that  P  is  poste- 


v.]  THE  PENTATEUCH :  DATES  OF  THE  SOURCES   33 

nor  to  D  ;  but  down  to  the  last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth 
century  the  prevalent  critical  opinion,  of  which  Ewald 
may  be  cited  as  an  outstanding  exponent,  was  that 
P  was  prior  to  D,  and  indeed  the  earliest  of  the  documents. 
To  the  theory,  then,  that  the  chronological  order  of  the 
documents  was  P,  JE,  D  has  succeeded  the  theory  (of 
Graf  and  Wellhausen)  that  the  order  is  JE,  D,  P.  Since 
it  is  impossible  to  discuss  this  question  of  date  in  any  way 
exhaustively  here,  it  will  be  best  to  dwell  mainly  on  the 
Une  of  argument  that  has  brought  about  this  change  in 
critical  judgment. 

The  earlier  critical  school  was  led  to  postulate  the 
priority  of  P  mainly  by  the  consideration  that  P  forms 
with  its  systematic  arrangement  and  chronological  scheme 
the  groundwork  of  the  whole — a  very  precarious  argument, 
for,  as  we  shall  see,  the  frameworks  of  the  books  of  Judges 
and  Kings  are  certainly  later  than  much  of  the  narrative 
of  these  books,  which  is  derived  from  earlier  sources. 

The  now  prevalent  critical  opinion  that  P  is  the  latest 
of  the  three  main  documents  rests  largely  on  a  Qpmparison 
of  the  three  codes  with  the  actual  course  of  history y  so  far 
as  that  is  known.  Such  a  comparison  shows  (1)  that  the 
practice  of  the  Hebrews  prior  to  the  seventh  century  follows 
the  laws  in  JE  {i.e.  mainly  Ex.  xx.-xxiii) ;  (2)  that  the 
practice  of  the  Jews  at  the  Reformation  of  Josiah,  and 
subsequently,  changes  from  earlier  practice  in  the  direction 
of  the  laws  of  D,  where  they  differ  from  those  of  JE  ;  and 
(3)  that  the  practice  of  the  Jews  from  the  time  of  Ezra 
onwards  follows  P,  where  this  is  in  conflict  with  the  laws 
of  JE  or  D. 

Our  knowledge  of  the  history  is  incomplete ;  and  con- 
sequently it  is  impossible  to  find  records  of  practice 
in  regard  to  innumerable  details  in  the  laws.  Moreover, 
certain  laws  remained  constant  throughout,  as  we  can  see 
from  the  repetition  of  some  laws  without  material  alteration 
in  successive  law-books  ;  and  many  laws  and  regulations, 
which  first  appear  in  literature  in  a  late  code  of  laws,  may 
nevertheless  have  existed  long  before  :  even  the  latest  law- 

o 


K 


34     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [CH, 

book  contains  much  ancient  material,  and  perpetuates, 
with  or  without  modification,  many  ancient  practices. 

The  argument,  then,  is  Umited  to  laws  that  differ  in  the 
extant  codes ;  and  the  argument  can  only  be  fuUy  carried 
through  where  the  recorded  history  refers  to  difference  of 
practice  corresponding  to  difference  of  laws.  One  or  two 
illustrations  must  sufl&ce. 

In  Ex.  XX.  24-26  we  find  a  law  regulating  the  structure 
of  altars  on  which  burnt-offerings  and  other  sacrifices  were 
to  be  offered ;  these  altars  must  be  of  earth  or  undressed 
stones,  but  may  not  be  built  of  hewn  stone  ;  these  alterna- 
tive regulations  tacitly  imply  a  multiplicity  of  legitimate 
altars,  and  the  same  assumption  underhes  the  last  part  of 
V.  24  :  every  place  that  has  been  the  scene  of  a  theophany 
will  be  Hkely  to  have  its  altar  at  which  the  Hebrew  may 
sacrifice  and  receive  a  blessing  from  God.  Early  Hebrew 
practice  follows  this  law :  there  were  many  altars,  such 
as  that  improvised  by  Saul  at  Michmash  (I  Sam.  xiv.  33  ff), 
or  that  on  which  Solomon  offered  burnt-offerings  in  the  high 
place  at  Gibeon  (1  Kings  iii.  4).  Moreover,  Ehjah  regards 
the  destruction  of  Yahweh's  (many)  altars  as  a  sin  (1  Kings 
xix.  14),  and  himself  repairs  the  altar  on  Carmel  (I  Kings 
xviii.  30).  So  also  in  the  narrative  of  JE  we  find  approving 
allusions  to  the  construction  of  altars  by  the  patriarchs 
(e.g.  Gen.  xii.  7,  8). 

Deuteronomy  (xii.)  enjoins  the  destruction  of  all 
Canaanite  altars,  forbids  the  offering  of  burnt-offerings  in 
a  multipUcity  of  places,  strictly  Umiting  the  offering  of 
such  offerings  and  the  discharge  of  other  similar  religious 
ritual  to  a  single  place.  In  practice  Josiah  carries  out  this 
law  (2  Kings  xxiii.).  Law  and  practice  have  so  completely 
changed  that  the  destruction  of  altars,  which  to  Ehjah  in 
the  ninth  century  was  a  sin,  is  in  Josiah  at  the  end  of 
the  seventh  century  a  meritorious  act. 

In  P  there  is  neither  direct  prohibition  of  many  altars, 
nor  direct  command  to  confine  sacrifices  to  a  single  place ; 
but  it  is  throughout  assumed  that  legitimate  sacrifice  can 
only  be  offered  on  the  one  altar  built  in  accordance  with  the 


v.]     THE  PENTATEUCH:    DATES  OF  THE  SOURCES       35 

instructions  given  at  Sinai.  The  narrative  of  P  is,  more- 
over, very  significant.  In  marked  contrast  to  JE,  P  records 
no  instance  of  an  altar  used  by  the  Patriarchs ;  he  records 
theophanies  to  them  {e.g.  Gen.  xvii.  1),  but  no  act  of 
sacrifice  by  them. 

While  there  were  many  altars,  there  was  ample  means 
of  asylum  (Ex.  xxi.  13,  14) ;  for  in  axjtual  early  practice 
the  altar  was  the  place  of  asylum  (1  Kings  i.  60).  With  the 
aboHtion  -of  all  altars  but  one,  it  became  necessary  to 
invent  fresh  asylums :  hence  the  *  cities '  of  D's  law 
(Deut.  xix.  1-13),  *  the  cities  of  refuge '  of  P  (Num.  xxxv. 
C?-34). 

With  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  priesthood  we  find 
three  differences  in  Hebrew  practice,  or  in  Hebrew  theory 
of  what  was  legitimate :  (1)  it  is  not  Hmited  even  to  the  j 
tribe  of  Levi,  though  a  preference  for  a  Levite  as  priest 
might  exist  (Judges  xvii.  6,  13) ;  (2)  the  priesthood  was  Al,^^^ 
Hmited  to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  but  co-extensive  with  it ;  any 
Levite  could  exercise  priestly  functions ;  against  this 
limitation  Jeroboam  offended  in  making  non-Levitical 
priests  (1  Kings  xii.  31);  (3)  the  priesthood  was  hmited  to  a 
section  of  the  Levites  :  this  was  the  practice  from  the  time 
of  Ezra  onwards  ;  priests  and  Levites  were  thus  no  longer 
synonymous  terms  :  all  priests  were  Levites,  but  not  all 
Levites  were  priests.  No  law  regulating  or  recognising 
the  earhest  practice  exists ;  for  the  laws  of  JE  do  not  define 
the  priesthood ;  but  in  D,  the  law  tacitly  approves  the 
second  stage  of  practice ;  priests  and  Levites  are  co- 
extensive terms  (Deut.  xviii.  1  and  elsewhere).  D  dis- 
tinguishes, indeed,  two  classes  of  Levites,  those  Hving  in 
the  capital  and  those  living  in  the  provincial  cities,  but 
expressly  secures  to  the  latter  as  well  as  to  the  former 
the  right  of  exercising  priestly  functions  (Deut.  xviii.  6-8). 
The  third  stage  of  practice  follows  the  laws  of  P,  which 
sharply  mark  off  the  priests,  as  sons  of  Aaron  the  Levite, 
from  all  other  Levites  (Ex.  xxviii.,  xxix  ;  Num.  iii.). 

In  this  particular  instance  we  can  trace  the  transition 
from  D  to  P  through  a  document  of  known  date,  to  wit 


A 


s 


36     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ca 

the  book  of  Ezekiel  (592-571) ;  in  Ezek.  xliv.  6-16  Ezekiel 
takes  a  survey  of  the  past  and  lays  down  rules  for  the 
future :  he  looks  back  to  the  conditions  tacitly  assumed 
and  approved  in  Deuteronomy,  and  still  continuing  to  his 
own  day :  all  Levites  have  been  priests,  some  exercising 
priestly  functions  in  the  provincial  cities,  some  (the  sons 
of  Zadok)  in  Jerusalem  ;  unUke  D,  Ezekiel  lays  down  that 
the  country  Levites  shall  no  longer  exercise  priestly 
functions,  but  shall  become  subordinate  ofl&cials  of  the 
Temple.  We  thus  see  in  Ezekiel  the  origin  late  in  history 
of  a  distinction  which  P  carries  back  to  the  giving  of  the 
law  at  Sinai.  The  significance  of  Ezek.  xhv.  6-16  has, 
Uke  everything  else,  been  questioned ;  if  it  has  been 
correctly  indicated  here,  this  passage  by  itself  would 
prove  the  posteriority  of  P  to  D. 

The  practice  in  the  matter  of  slavery  down  to  the  Exile 
follows  the  laws  of  JE  and  D,  and  conflicts  with  that  of  P 
(see  p.  24) ;  Hebrews  were  held  by  their  fellow  Hebrews 
in  slavery  (2  Kings  iv.  1-7  ;  Jer.  xxxiv.  8  ff.). 

We  may  proceed  now  from  the  question  of  the  relative 
antiquity  of  JE,  D,  and  P  to  consider  how  closely  it  is 
possible  to  determine  the  absolute  dates  of  JE  and  P ; 
D,  as  we  have  already  seen,  first  appears  in  Jewish  history 
in  621  B.C. 

As  *  the  book  of  the  law '  in  2  Kings  xxii.  appears  to  be 
D  (in  whole  or  in  part),  so  *  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,' 
which,  according  to  Neh.  viii.,  was  read  by  Ezra  on  several 
successive  days  (in  444  B.C.)  to  a  public  gathering  of  the 
Jews,  appears  to  be,  or  to  have  included,  P  (in  whole  or  in 
part) :  for  in  consequence,  the  people  observe  the  feast  of 
booths  for  eight  days  (Neh.  viii.  14-18)  as  the  law  of  P 
(Lev.  xxiii.  36)  required,  not  merely  for  the  «evcji  days  fixed 
by  D  (Deut.  xvi.  13). 

The  composition  of  P  would  thus  fall  between  621,  the 
date  of  D,  and  444,  when  it  was  publicly  read  by  Ezra. 
In  style  there  are  marked  similarities  to  Ezekiel ;  in  view 
of  the  relation  aheady  discussed  as  existing  between  the 
theories  of  the  priesthood  in  Ezekiel  and  P,  we  must 


v.]  THE  PENTATEUCH :  DATES  OF  THE  SOURCES   37 

conclude  that  Ezekiel  has  influenced  P  and  not  vice  versa. 
The  common  working  hypothesis  is  that  P  was  composed  in    /    , 
Babylon  about  500  b.o. 

The  closer  determination  of  the  date  of  JE  is  more 
difficult ;    but  even  the  combined  work  JE  may  be,  and 
certainly  the  separate  narratives  J  and  E  and  the  law  book  ^    ^ 
(Ex.  xx.-xxiii.)  are,  earlier  than  D.    In  style,  the  narratives  j-^  ^ 
resemble  the  early  sources  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings ' 
(see  below,  pp.  62,  73),  both  generally  in  their  vividness  and 
picturesqueness  as  contrasted  with  the  dry  style  of  P,  and 
in  respect  of  certain  usages  that  point  to  an  earlier  period, 
such  as  the  relative  preference  for  the  pronominal  form 
dnoki  and   the  use  of  the  old  Canaanite  names  for  the    V^*^ 
months  in  place  of  which  P,  in  common  with  writers  from 
the  sixth  century  onwards,  defines  the  months  by  number. 
But  the  style  does  not  serve  to  define  the  dates  of  those 
works  at   all   closely ;   it  would   be  natural  in  works  of 
the  eighth  or  ninth  centuries  B.C.,  but  also  a  century  or 
two  earlier,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  scarcely  inconceivable 
somewhat  later. 

The  laws  have  in  view  a  settled  agricultural  people,  with 
fields  and  vineyards  in  the  possession  of  individuals,  and 
provide  for  a  fallow  year  once  in  seven  (Ex.  xxii.  6  f., 
xxiii.  10  f.).  Similarly  such  an  anachronism  as  speaking  of 
Canaan  as  '  the  land  of  the  Hebrews '  in  Gen.  xl.  15,  and 
such  modes  of  speech  as  occur,  e.g.,  in  Gen.  xii.  6,  xiii.  7 
(cp.  p.  16),  and  Num.  xxii.  41  (cp.  Judges  x.  4)  are  most 
naturally,  if  not  alone,  exphcable  by  the  assumption  that 
J  and  E  were  written  long  after  the  settlement  in  Canaan. 
In  Josh.  X.  13,  a  source,  the  '  book  of  Jashar,'  is  cited  which 
also  contained  a  poem  of  David  (2  Sam.  i.  17).  The  age 
of  the  '  book  of  the  wars  of  Yahweh '  (Num.  xxi.  14  f.),  or 
of  the  songs  cited  in  JE,  cannot  be  exactly  determined ; 
but  the  mode  of  reference  in  Num.  xxi.  14,  27  rather  sug- 
gests that  the  days  of  Moses  lie  far  behind. 

The  age  to  which  J  and  E  are  commonly  assigned  is 
therefore  that  of  the  early  monarchy — after  David  (c.  1000 
B.C.)  and  before  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century  B.C., 


^ 


38     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [CH. 

who  'perhaps  allude  to  these  narratives :  they  certainly 
allude  to  traditions  incorporated  in  them  (Am.  ii.  9  ;  Hos. 
xii.  3  £.,  12  f .),  and  certainly  also  represent  a  more  advanced 
religious  point  of  view. 

As  to  the  relative  age  of  J  and  E  opinion  differs,  and  the 
question  cannot  even  be  satisfactorily  discussed  apart  from 
the  question  of  the  unity  of  each  source.  As  to  the  place  of 
origin  there  is  also  difference  of  opinion  as  regards  J, 
though  it  is  commonly  held  to  have  been  composed  in 
Judah :  Judah  in  J's  narrative  of  Joseph  takes  the  lead, 
though  Reuben,  who  in  E  takes  the  lead,  was  by  common 
consent  Jacob's  eldest  bom ;  and  there  are  other  more  or 
less  clear  indications  that  Judah  holds  the  upper  place  in 
the  affections  of  this  writer.  E,  whose  work  gives  promin- 
ence to  famous  places  of  the  northern  kingdom,  such  as 
Shechem  and  Bethel,  and  to  the  Ephraimite  hero  Joshua, 
is  more  generally  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  northern 
kingdonu 


▼1.1  THE  PENTATEUCH:   ITS  ORIGINS 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  PENTATEUCH:   ITS  ORIGINS  AND  THE 
HISTORY  OF  ITS  GROWTH 

[n  chapter  iii.  it  was  argued  that  the  Pentateuch  is  not  the 
work  as  it  stands  of  Moses ;  in  chapter  iv.  that  it  can  be 
analysed  into  three  main  constituent  elements,  now  denoted 
by  the  symbols  JE,  D,  P,  each  of  which  consisted  (even  as 
now  fragmentarily  preserved  in  the  Pentateuch),  in  part  of 
narrative,  in  part  of  law ;  in  chapter  v.  some  of  the  lines 
of  arguments  have  been  indicated  by  which  the  conclusion 
is  reached  that  J  and  E  are  works  of  the  period  of  the  early, 
monarchy,  that  D  was  first  published  in  621,  and  P  com-^ 
posed  about  500.  It  has  also  been  pointed  out  that*^ 
included  in,  or  in  addition  to,  these  three  main  sources,  we 
find  in  the  Pentateuch  a  number  of  poems  attributed  to 
different  persons  living  at  widely  different  periods. 

By  what  processes  were  these  various  elements  brought 
together  ?  How  are  these  various  elements  related  to  one 
another  ?  How  complex  are  works  such  as  JE,  D,  P  which 
analysis  in  the  first  instance  discriminates  ?  On  what  do 
the  earliest  narratives  rest  ?  These  and  other  questions 
have  naturally  arisen  and  have  naturally  also  received 
different  answers.  All  that  can  be  here  attempted  is  to 
indicate  the  more  important  evidence  available,  and,  in 
brief  outline,  the  form  which  such  answers  should  probably 
take. 

And  first  the  question  of  the  unity  of  the  sources,  and  here, 
again,  in  the  first  instances  of  P.  As  over  against  D  and 
JE  the  style  of  all  that  is  comprehended  under  P  is  sharply 
defined ;   but  within  P  certain  smaller  variations  of  style 


40     CRITICAL  INTRODOCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [cH. 

have  been  observed  ;  in  themselves  they  might  prove  little, 
but  within  P  certain  differences  of  law  have  been  discerned, 
and  certain  suspicions  awakened  that  even  in  the  narrative 
of  P  there  can  be  distinguished  what  is  original  and  what 
secondary.  A  transitional  theory  in  the  last  century 
ventured,  indeed,  to  separate  by  several  centuries  the  entire 
narrative  of  P  from  the  laws  of  P  ;  but  the  similarities  of 
style  between  laws  and  narrative  are  too  significant  to 
admit  of  such  a  theory  surviving ;  moreover,  the  very 
narrative  of  P  is  by  its  dominant  interest  most  intimately 
connected  with  the  laws :  it  is  pre-eminently  a  history  of 
the  origin  of  the  sacred  institutions  of  the  Jews — of  thej^ 
Sabbath  at  Creation,  of  circumcision  in  the  time  of  Abraham, ' 
of  the  divine  name  Yahweh  in  the  days  of  Moses,  of  the 
priesthood  and  the  sacrificial  system  at  Sinai,  of  the  cities 
of  refuge,  and  the  sacred  cities  of  the  Levites. 

But  it  is  possible  that  the  original  narrative  of  P,  written, 
say,  c.  500  B.C.,  was  later  expanded.  For  example.  Num. 
vii.  1-88,  which  in  its  wearisome  repetition  might  almost 
pass  for  a  parody  of  the  style  of  P,  appears  to  be  an  addition 
of  a  writer  famiUar  (w.  5-9)  with  the  functions  ascribed 
to  the  several  divisions  of  Levi  in  Num.  iii. ;  yet  chrono- 
logically it  should  precede  Num.  i.  (cp.  Num.  vii.  1,  10  with 
Ex.  xl.  2,  17).  Again,  in  Num.  xvi.  we  have  grafted  on 
to  a  story  from  the  main  narrative  of  P,  which  records  a 
revolt  of  representatives  of  the  whole  people  against  the 
Levites,  represented  by  Aaron  and  Moses,  in  vindication  of 
their  equal  holiness,  certain  additions  (xvi.  8-11,  36-40),  the 
object  of  which  is  to  condemn  non-Aaronio  Levites  for 
seeking  the  priesthood. 

When  we  turn  to  the  legal  parts  of  P  we  are  faced  with 
two  possibilities,  and  in  all  probability  have  to  reckon  with 
two  actual  facts  :  the  compiler  of  P  may  have  incorporated 
in  his  work  laws  previously  formulated,  deriving  them 
straight  from  some  priestly  code  of  laws ;  on  the  other 
hand,  after  the  compilation  of  P  circumstances  may  have 
necessitated  change  of  practice,  and  a  law  regulating  the 
change  may  have  been  interpolated  in  P ;  or  laws  prior  to 


VI.]  THE  PENTATEUCH :    ITS  ORIGINS  41 

F,  but  not  at  first  incorporated  in  it,  may  have  been 
inserted  later  for  greater  completeness. 

A  distinct  element,  now  embedded  in,  and  even  in  parts 
interwoven  with,  P,  has  generally  been  recognised  in  Lev. 
xvii.-xxvi. :  the  major  part  of  these  chapters  is  distin- 
guished by  marked  peculiarities  of  style  and  motive : 
on  account  of  one  of  its  characteristics,  the  prominence 
given  to  holiness,  which  appears  as  the  leading  motive  of 
the  whole,  this  code  has  been  termed  the  Law  of  Holiness  ; 
it  is  denoted  by  the  symbol  H  or  Pi»,  and  may  have  been 
written  early  in  the  Exile. 

It  is  perfectly  possible  that  other  laws,  such  as  those 
regulating  the  different  kinds  of  sacrifice  in  Lev.  i.-iii., 
may  have  been  already  formulated  before  they  were 
incorporated  in  the  historico-legal  work,  P. 

An  example  of  conflicting  regulations  within  P,  pointing 
to  the  presence  of  additions  to  the  main  work,  is  afforded 
by  the  comparison  of  Num.  iv.  3  and  viii.  23-26 :  the 
one  passage  defines  the  age  of  Levitical  service  as  from 
thirty  to  fifty,  the  other  as  from  twenty-five  to  fifty. 

For  these  different  strata  of  P  different  symbols  have 
been  employed  such  as  P^,  P^,  P^,  etc.,  but  it  is  obviously 
difficult  to  determine  the  exact  number  of  different  con- 
tributors to  this  part  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  to  distribute 
it  in  detail  among  such  different  contributors.  The 
important  general  conclusion  is  that  P  in  its  entirety  is  a 
historico-legal  work,  compiled  probably  about  500  B.C., 
on  the  basis  largely  of  previously  existing  Temple  practice, 
and  perhaps  incorporating  previously  formulated  laws  of 
that  practice,  to  which  later  writers,  sharing  the  same 
fundamental  reUgious  ideas  and  belonging  to  the  same 
school  as  the  author  of  the  main  work,  made  more  or  less 
extensive  additions. 

We  turn  next  to  D.  Here  again  a  general  homogeneity 
of  style  marks  off  the  whole  from  JE  and  P ;  but  (1)  it 
may  be  questioned  whether  '  the  book  of  the  law,'  read 
and  re-read  on  the  day  of  its  discovery  (2  Kings  xxii.  8, 10), 
was  so  large  a  work  as  Deuteronomy,  and  there  is  no 


42     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

reason  for  supposing  that  it  contained  the  passages  marked 
by  the  same  style  in  Joshua ;  (2)  Deuteronomy  itself  gives 
indications  of  having  been  expanded:  iv.  44- v.  2  reads 
less  Uke  a  resumption  of  i.  3-6  than  an  independent  com- 
mencement ;  and  possibly  different  final  orations  or  con- 
clusions may  be  detected  towards  the  close  of  the  book, 
note  e.g.  the  paralleUsm  of  chs.  xxviii.  and  xxix  2-xxx.  20, 
and  that  the  latter  passage  is  probably  the  work  of  one 
who,  Uving  a  generation  or  so  later  than  621,  had  actually 
witnessed  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  captivity 
of  the  people,  and  the  desolation  of  the  land  by  the 
Babylonians. 

A  theory  that  meets  these  and  other  facts  is,  that  the 
original  book  of  Josiah's  Reformation  did  not  include  more 
than  iv.  44-xxvi.  together  with  ch.  xxviii.,  and  that  this 
work  (specifically  D^)  was  enlarged  by  a  fresh  introductory 
discourse,  i.  1-iv.  43  and  other  matter  by  one  or  more 
writers  of  the  same  school  (D^). 

But  whatever  the  extent  of  D  in  its  original  form,  on 
what  did  it  rest  ?  Whence  were  the  laws  it  contains 
derived  ?  Whence  the  material  worked  up  into  the 
opening  and  concluding  orations  ? 

If  the  laws  contained  in  D  were  without  exception 
related  to  the  changes  wrought  at  the  reformation  that 
followed  its  discovery,  they  might  be  explained  as  the 
sole  and  immediate  work  of  the  author  of  the  book.  But^ 
the  scope  of  the  laws  is  extensive  ;  the  aim  of  the  book  is 
to  regulate  the  whole  of  life  on  the  basis  of  prophetic 
teaching ;  and  for  this  purpose  it  abrogates  certain  old 
laws  in  favour  of  new  laws  intended  to  secure  the 
centralisation  of  worship,  and  to  make  due  provision  for 
consequential  changes  {e.g.  Deut.  xii.  20-22)  ;  but  it  also 
perpetuates  many  old  laws  that  were  not  out  of  harmony 
with  the  new  conditions  aimed  at,  but  had  sprung  out  of 
old  custom,  and  had  proved  to  be  in  the  interests  of 
orderly  and  brotherly  social  hfe.  A  considerable  part  of 
the  laws  of  D  are  directly  drawn  from  the  earlier  code  in 
Ex.  zx.-zxiii.«  the  bulk  of  which  (with  the  exception  of 


VL]  THE  PENTATEUCH:   ITS  ORIGINS  43 

Ex.  xxi.  18-xxii.  16)  re-appears  in  Deuteronomy,  sometimes 
verbatitn,  sometimes  expanded  with  a  view  especially  to 
enforce  the  teaching  of  the  book.  And  it  is  probable  that 
many  other  laws,  such  as  those  in  xxi.  10-xxv.  16,  had 
been  previously  formulated,  if  not  also  previously  written. 

The  narratives  or  orations  in  the  book  also  obviously  rest 
for  their  information,  and  to  some  extent  also  even  for  their 
phraseology,  on  known  sources,  viz.  J  and  E ;  or,  perhaps 
exclusively,  and  certainly  in  the  main,  on  E,  some  of  the 
characteristics  of  which  source,  such  as  the  use  of  the 
name  Horeb  (not  Sinai)  for  the  mount  of  the  law,  thus 
become  characteristics  also  of  Deuteronomy. 

Of  dependence  on  P  there  is  no  trace  either  in  the  laws 
or  the  orations  of  D  ;  and  for  a  perfectly  obvious  reason, 
if  the  conclusion  that  P  is  a  century  or  more  later  than 
D  is  correct.  The  question  of  the  more  exact  relation  of 
D  to  JE  cannot  be  pursued  here ;  it  must  suffice  to  hint 
that  if  the  dependence  of  D  is  on  E  to  the  exclusion  of 
J,  then  it  would  follow  that  J  and  E  had  not  yet  been 
combined,  or,  at  least,  that  the  combined  work  was  not 
followed  by  D ;  and  i/,  further,  E  was  compiled  in  the 
northern  kingdom,  and  J  in  the  south,  a  certain  pre- 
sumption in  favour  of  a  theory  that  has  occasionally 
been  suggested,  viz.  that  D  was  composed  in  the  northern 
kingdom,  would  arise.  But  whether  that  presumption 
would  be  of  much  weight  as  against  the  difficulties  that 
would  beset  such  a  theory  is  another  question. 

We  reach,  finally,  the  earHest  main  sources,  J  and  E. 
Do  these  symbols  cover  each  a  single  writer  only  ?  On 
what  does  each  rest  ?  The  first  question  is  not  rendered 
easier  of  discussion  by  the  fact  that  we  cannot  reconstruct 
either  work  with  anything  Hke  the  completeness,  or 
degree  of  probability,  with  which  we  can  reconstruct 
either  P  or  D.  In  the  first  place,  as  already  indicated, 
the  analysis  of  the  complex  JE  into  the  two  elements  J 
and  E  is  itself  often  difficult  and  uncertain ;  then  again 
there  are  indications  of  some  departure  from  the  order  of 
the  contents  of  the  original  works  in  the  order  in  which 


44     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch 

the  excerpts  from  these  works  now  stand  in  the  Pentateuch  ; 

Xand  finally  it  is  highly  probable  that  less  relatively  of  J 
and  E  has  been  preserved  than  of  P. 

Here  it  must  suffice  to  say  that  the  presence  within  the 
same  source  of  similar  incidents,  and  of  passages  marked 
by  respectively  more  or  less  advanced  theological  con- 
ceptions, are  among  the  types  of  evidence  that  have  led 
many  to  postulate  earlier  and  later  writers  of  the  same 
school  (J^  J2,  E\  E^),  so  that  while  J*  E^  may  have  been 
written  as  early  as  c.  900  and  c.  750  respectively,  J^  E^  will 
represent  additions  as  late,  in  some  cases,  as  the  seventh 
century.  In  other  words,  J  and  E  should  be  understood 
^  not  as  symbols  for  individuals  and  their  respective  works, 
but  for  schools  and  products  of  schools. 

However  we  interpret  the  symbols  J  and  E,  it  is  obvious 
that  to  some  extent  the  writers  in  question  had  hooks 
relating  to  the  past  or  containing  laws  at  their  disposal : 
see  e.g.  Num.  xxi.  14 ;  Josh.  x.  13 ;  cp.  Ex.  xxiv.  4,  7. 
But  we  have  certainly  no  proof  that  either  J  or  E  rested  to 
anything  Uke  the  same  extent  as  D  (pp.  42, 43)  on  a  literary 
basis ;  and  it  is  probable  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  they 
did  not,  but  that  in  the  main  J  and  E  represent  the 
literary  origins  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  basis  of  J  and  E 
was  probably,  in  the  main,  oral ;  each  of  these  works 
was  the  first  attempt  to  reduce  to  writing  the  stories  of 
the  origin  of  the  world,  of  the  patriarchs,  of  the  earliest 
history  of  the  people,  as  these  had  been  wont  to  be  told 
at  local  shrines,  such  as  Shechem,  Hebron,  Bethel,  which 
many  of  these  stories  serve  to  celebrate,  or  by  wandering 
minstrels  or  reciters.  Those  who  committed  these  stories 
to  writing,  connecting  them,  if  they  had  not  already  been 
80  connected,  in  cycles,  and  giving  to  them  or  enhancing 
their  religious  significance,  adorned  their  work  also  with 
songs,  some  of  which  had  been  written,  and  some  of  which 
they  had  learned  from  the  mouths  of  professional 
reciters  (cp.  p.  18). 

These  works  also  contained  laws,  and  in  this  respect  they 
resembled  D  and  P;  but  there  is  a  difference :  D  of  necessity 


VI.]  THE  PENTATEUCH :    ITS  ORIGINS  45 

contained  laws,  for  its  purpose  was  to  regulate  society  and 
in  some  important  respects  anew  ;  P  was  a  history  of  the 
sacred  institutions  of  the  Hebrews,  among  which  the  law 
of  Moses  and  in  particular  the  developed  and  elaborate 
sacrificial  system  stood  pre-eminent ;  but  neither  J  nor 
E  was  written  to  effect  a  change  in  society,  nor  was  either 
limited  or  even  primarily  devoted  to  the  history  of  institu- 
tions ;  each  is  a  story  of  the  past  of  the  nation  and  of 
Yahweh's  dealings  with  it ;  it  is  as  one  of  Yahweh's  gifts 
to  the  nation  that  the  laws  are  introduced.  But  J  and  E 
were  not  written  in  days  of  change,  and  the  laws  introduced 
into  them  were  not  new  laws :  they  had  been  in  part  at 
least  already  committed  to  writing ;  they  may  in  part  also 
represent  the  first  written  form  of  ancient  case  law,  as  it 
gradually  established  itself  at  one  or  other  of  the  priestly  ^  i 

and  judicial  centres.  » iV^' 

In  any  case  the  legal  part  of  (J)E  is  not  all  of  the  same 
character,  nor  probably  all  of  the  same  origin.  The  most 
important  difference  in  character  is  between  '  the  words  '  \^ 
and  '  the  judgments '  (Ex.  xxiv.  3) ;  the  '  words '  are  abso-  ' 
lute  commands  of  which  the  best  known  are  the  *  ten 
words '  (or  commandments)  in  Ex.  xx.  3-17,  but  of  which 
Ex.  xxxiv.  10-26 ;  xx.  23-26 ;  xxii.  18-22,  28-31 ;  xxiii.  1-3 
are  further  examples ;  the  *  judgments '  are  hjrpothetical  , 

instructions  for  cases  that,  having  doubtless  often  arisen /^fi^ 
in  the  past,  were  likely  to  recur ;  this  latter  type  of  Hebrew  ^        ^ 
law,  which  has  a  most  striking  ancient  parallel  in  the  far      * 
older  Babylonian  code  of  Hammurabi,  occurs  in  Ex.  xxi. 
2-14,  18,  36 ;  xxii.  1-17,  25  f. ;  xxiii.  4  f.,  and  reappears 
in  parts  of  Deut.  (e.g.  xxii.  13  ff.). 

Along  both  lines,  that  of  local  story  and  consuetudinary 
law,  the  pre-Hterary  origins  of  JE  stretch  l)ack  into  the 
dim  and  distant  past :  some  of  the  law  may  well  enough 
run  back  to  the  agj  of  Moses,  some  of  it  may  rest  on 
local  custom  among  the  predecessors  of  the  Hebrews  in 
Canaan,  just  as  we  know  that  some  of  the  stories  in 
Genesis  (Creation,  the  Flood)  run  back  to  a  distant  past 
fin  Babylonian  history. 


46     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [CH. 

From  these  remote  origins  it  is  necessary  to  turn  for 
a  moment  to  some  elements  in  the  Pentateuch  that 
have  not  yet  been  considered,  and  some  of  which  belong 
either  certainly  or  possibly  to  the  latest  period  of  its 
history. 

Of  the  date  and  origin  of  the  poetry  incorporated  in  the 
Pentateuch,  it  is  not  possible  to  speak  at  length  here. 
Most  of  it,  as  cited  on  p.  18,  occurs  at  present  in  JE,  and 
probably  stood  originally  in  either  J  or  E,  and  on  that 
account  must  be  regarded  as  at  least  as  early  as  those  early 
sources  in  which  it  was  included.  Gen.  xHx.  is  probably  as 
late  as  the  reign  of  David,  for  it  is  famihar  with  Judah 
as  the  tribe  of  the  ruler  (v.  10) ;  but  not  necessarily  much 
later ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  is  later  than  Gen.  xHx.,  for  in  it  Levi 
has  ceased  to  be  a  secular  and  has  become  a  sacred  tribe, 
the  tribe  of  Reuben  is  nearly  extinct,  and  Simeon  is 
not  mentioned,  probably  because  it  had  already  become 
extinct ;  but  the  poem  indicates  throughout  no  sense  of 
present  or  imminent  national  disaster,  takes  small  notice  of 
Judah,  but  magnifies  the  two  divisions  of  Joseph,  viz. 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  and  therefore  was  most  probably 
written  in  the  northern  kingdom  before  the  fatal  advance 
of  Assyria  westwards,  which  began  in  745  B.C.  A  similar 
sense  of  national  security  and  prosperity  dominates  the 
first  four  songs  of  Balaam,  for  which  on  this  ground  the 
same  inferior  Umit  may  be  set  as  for  Deut.  xxxiii. ;  the 
allusion  to  the  monarchy  in  Num.  xxiv.  7, 17  points  to  a  aate 
at  least  as  late  as  Saul.  The  product  of  a  later  age  is  to  be 
discovered  in  Deut.  xxxii.  1-43,  for  here  the  sense  of  national 
disaster  is  conspicuously  present,  and  the  poem  is  scarcely 
earlier  than  the  end  of  the  seventh  century  B.C.  The 
priests'  blessing  in  P  (Num.  vi.  24-26)  may  also  belong  to 
this  period,  and  be  an  expression  of  the  centrahsation 
effected  by  Josiah ;  or  it  may  be  earher.  The  curse  of 
Noah  (Gen.  ix.  24  f),  the  divine  oracle  in  Gen.  xxv.  23,  the 
Song  of  Miriam  in  Ex.  xv.  21,  are  scarcely  the  work  of  the 
author  of  the  prose  setting  in  which  they  now  occur,  but  are 
of  a  greater  antiquity  which  cannot  be  closely  defined. 


VI.]  THE  PENTATEUCH :    ITS  ORIGINS  47 

On  the  other  hand  the  Song  of  Moses,  which  now  appears  in 
Ex.  XV.  1-18,  and  may  be  regarded  as  an  expansion  of  the 
couplet  attributed  to  Miriam  (note  Ex.  xv.  lb=xv.  21),  may 
be  the  product  of  a  much  later  writer  living,  perhaps,  Uttle 
if  at  all  before  the  Exile. 

There  remains  for  brief  consideration  a  prose  passage 
that  stands  somewhat  isolated  and  is  in  some  respects  of 
unique  character  :  this  is  Gen.  xiv.  In  style  it  stands  apart 
from  JE,  D,  and  P,  and  not  less  so  in  its  presentation  of 
Abraham,  who  here  only  in  the  Pentateuch  appears  as  a 
warrior,  the  conqueror  of  mighty  kings  of  the  East,  blessed 
by  the  mysterious  and  otherwise  unknown  Melchizedek, 
king  of  Salem,  but  proudly  refusing,  in  the  consciousness 
that  his  riches  came  from  elsewhere,  to  receive  the  sHghtest 
acknowledgment  by  way  of  gift  from  the  king  of  Sodom. 
On  account  of  the  more  or  less  exact  correspondence  of  the 
names  of  the  Eastern  kings  Amraphel,  Arioch,  and  Tidal,  with 
the  now  famous  Hammurabi  (c.  2000  B.C.),  Eriaku  of  Larsa 
and  Tudchula,  son  of  Gazza,  whose  existence  is  attested  by 
inscriptions,  and  of  the  genuine  Elamitic  form  of  the  name 
Chedorlaomer,  it  has  frequently  been  attempted  of  late  to 
maintain  that  the  passage  is  of  extremely  ancient  origin  and 
in  all  respects  to  be  accepted  as  historical.  But  along  with 
the  presence  of  such  indications  of  relatively  late  date  as 
the  use  of  the  name  Dan  (see  p.  16),  there  are  many  other 
features  in  the  passage  that  render  such  a  view  difi&cult,  not 
to  say  impossible,  to  maintain ;  the  use  of  Salem  (cp.  Ps. 
Ixxvi.  2)  for  Jerusalem  is  probably  a  pseudo-archaism,  for 
Jerusalem  itself  in  the  form  Urusahmu  is  already  the 
name  of  the  city  in  the  earliest  contemporary  reference 
to  it  (Tell  el-Amama  Tablets,  c.  1400  B.C.)  ;  and  various 
points  of  style,  including  some  affinities  with  P,  suggest 
that,  at  aU  events  in  its  present  form,  Gren.  xiv.  is  no  earUer 
than  Ezekiel,  and  probably  enough  later  stiU.  The  passage 
is  best  regarded  as  a  Midrash  (cp.  p.  95),  based  on  some 
accurate  information  with  regard  to  Babylonian  and  other 
early  rulers,  and  possibly  some  further  accurate  information 
about  the  period  of  these  rulers,  but  composed  for  the  pur- 


48     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 

pose  of  magnifying  the  great  patriarch,  and  bringing  him 
into  relation  with  Jerusalem. 

Our  survey  of  the  hterary  elements  that  have  coalesced 
in  the  Pentateuch,  undergoing  in  the  process  more  or  less 
modification,  is  now  all  but  complete.  There  remains  for 
consideration  the  nature  of  the  process  or  processes  of  co- 
alescence, and  the  extent  of  the  modifications  involved  ;  in 
other  words,  the  question  of  what  editor  or  editors  brought 
together  the  sources,  and  how  far  such  editors  adhered  to 
the  method  adopted  by  Tatian  in  the  Diatessaron  (p.  11), 
of  arranging  freely  and  interweaving,  but  making  httle  or 
no  change  by  way  of  omission  or  addition,  or  how  far  such 
editors  adopted  the  method  of  the  author  of  Chronicles, 
who  cites  much  verbatim  from  the  source,  but  also  adds, 
omits,  and  changes  (cp.  pp.  8-11). 

Between  the  distant  pre-Hterary  origins  of  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  latest  hterary  elements  that  we  have  yet  considered 
there  hes  a  period  of  something  approaching  a  thousand 
years.  Of  the  history  of  the  growth  from  those  origins  to 
the  complete  work,  we  have  practically  no  external  evidence 
apart  from  the  narratives  of  2  Kings  xxii.-xxiii.  and  Neh. 
viii.  Whatever  theory  of  that  history  we  form  must  rest 
on  internal  evidence,  and  this  is  often  ambiguous,  and  in 
many  points,  even  so,  of  the  scantiest.  It  is  not  surprising 
that  different  theories  have  been  framed,  and  that  none 
can  be  regarded  as  certain. 

The  simplest  theory,  possible  in  the  abstract  but  im- 
probable, would  be  that  a  single  editor  in  the  fifth  century 
B.C.  brought  together  all  the  different  elements  that 
analysis  discovers,  and  that  till  then  had  continued  to 
exist  apart.  But  a  theory  that  is  to  do  justice  to  facts  and 
probabilities  must  certainly  be  more  complex  than  that : 
more  than  one  editor  or  redactor  must  be  assumed.  But 
this  question  of  editors  is  closely  associated  with  the 
question  already  considered  of  the  possible  existence  of 
different  strata  in  the  sources  denominated  J,  E,  D,  P ;  for 
if  it  be  assumed  that  an  editor  R*"  combined  J  and  E,  and 
in  combining  made  additions  of  his  own,  the  work  of  R^" 


YL]  THE  PENTATEUCH:   ITS  ORIGINS  49 

and  J2,  where  the  latter  stands  for  expansions  of  J,  may 
be  ahnost  indistinguishable.  The  extent  of  difference  be- 
tween some  different  theories  can  be  readily  estimated,  and 
understood  to  be  slight,  if  this  is  borne  in  mind. 

It  is  impossible  to  examine,  in  any  detail  here,  work 
which  appears  to  be  editorial  rather  than  derived  from  a 
source ;  moreover,  it  must  be  remembered  that  work 
which  at  one  point  must  be  regarded  as  editorial  becomes 
itself  a  source  when  editorial  additions  or  modifications  are 
cited  indiscriminately  with  words  of  an  earlier  source  by 
a  later  editor. 

It  will  perhaps  be  convenient  to  say  all  that  our  limi- 
tations permit  on  this  point  in  connection  with  a  synthetic 
and  historical  summary  based  on  the  previous  analytical 
discussion. 

The  ultimate  origins  of  the  Pentateuch  are  oral — songs 
that  were  recited  before  they  were  written  down,  stories 
of  the  past  that  had  long  been  told  with  characteristic 
differences  in  different  localities  before  they  were  welded 
into  a  fixed  oral  cycle,  and  later  into  Hterary  form,  laws 
that  had  been  formulated,  but  were  at  first  handed  down 
orally  from  generation  to  generation  of  priests,  at  the  several 
sanctuaries.  These  oral  origins  belong  to  the  eighth  and 
ninth  and  many  earlier  centuries  ;  and  even  as  late  as  the 
seventh  century,  or  later  still,  D  and  P,  may  have  drawn 
afresh  from  fixed  oral  tradition  laws  that  had  not  pre- 
viously been  written. 

Books  of  songs  may  have  existed  as  early  as  David's 
time,  or  even  earher,  though  one  of  those  actually  cited  in 
the  Pentateuch  was  certainly  not  earlier  than  the  age  of 
David.  Written  law  existed  as  early  as  the  eighth  century 
(cp.  Hos.  viii.  12).  From  these  books  of  song,  and  books 
of  law,  the  earliest  narratives  preserved  in  the  Pentateuch 
drew ;  but  in  the  main  J  and  E  are  the  earliest  Hterary 
form  of  the  stories  told  in  them.  J  was,  perhaps,  com- 
posed c.  900  in  the  southern  kingdom,  E,  perhaps,  about 
750  in  the  northern  kingdom.  Both  J  and  E  may  have 
received  expansions  while  they  continued  distinct  works, 

D 


50     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 

and  such  expansions  may  be  termed  J*  and  E*  respectively. 
How  early  J  and  E  were  combined  is  uncertain  ;  but  if,  as 
is  probable,  they  were  combined  independently  of  D,  the 
editor  who  combined  them,  and  any  additions  he  made  in 
so  doing,  may  be  conveniently  described  as  R*^".  D  was 
published  in  621 ;  further  work  of  the  same  school  written 
within  the  next  generation  or  so  (D^)  appears  in  Joshua 
and  to  some  extent  in  Deuteronomy.  D,  and  some  pas- 
sages {e.g.,  Deut.  i.)  which  possibly  belong  to  D^,  are 
certainly  based  on  E,  possibly  also  on  J  ;  if  exclusively  on 
E,  then  probably  JE  was  not  yet  combined,  and  R"'"  was 
later  than  D,  and  probably  also  than  D* ;  and  indeed 
the  possibility  would  remain  that  J,  E,  D  were  brought  to- 
gether by  a  single  editorial  hand,  R'^"^,  and  that  R*^^  had 
no  separate  existence  ;  but  if  D  can  be  shown  to  rest  on  J 
also,  then  probably,  and  if  on  R*^^,  then  certainly,  the 
union  of  JE  took  place  prior  to  621,  say  c.  650  b.o. 

The  old  prophetic  narratives  JE,  either  separately,  or 
more  probably  already  combined,  were  next  united  with  D, 
and  at  the  same  time  here  and  there  slightly  expanded  or 
modified  by  a  member  or  members  (R")  of  the  Deuteronomio 
school,  the  resultant  work  being  JED.  This  work  carried 
down  the  narrative  to  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  and 
contained  much  of  what  now  stands  in  Josh,  i.-xii.,  xxii.- 
xxiv.  This  editorial  process  may  be  assigned  to  the  sixth 
century  B.C. 

The  last  main  editorial  stage  in  the  history  of  the  Penta- 
teuch consisted  of  the  combination  of  so  much  of  JED  and 
so  much  of  P  as  dealt  with  the  history  down  to  the  death 
of  Moses ;  this  was  the  work  of  an  editor  (R**),  whose  method 
was  to  fit  excerpts  from  JED  into  the  framework  of  P. 
This  process  took  place  (shortly)  after  rather  than  before 
444  B.o. 

JEDP  represents,  approximately,  the  complete  Penta- 
teuch ;  yet  after  the  union  of  the  four  main  works,  addi- 
tions such  as  Gen.  xiv.,  and  some  of  P",  such  as  Ex.  xxxv.- 
xl.,  which  latter  chapters  also  survive  in  an  extensively 
and  significantly  different  form  in  the  LXX.,  were  not  im- 


VI.]  THE  PENTATEUCH :    ITS  ORIGINS  51 

probably  added.  In  view  of  the  variations  in  the  LXX.,  it 
is  doubtful  whether  the  argument  can  be  too  rigidly  pressed 
that  the  Samaritan  schism  must  have  taken  place  in  432, 
that  after  that  date  the  Samaritans  would  neither  have 
accepted  as  their  sacred  book  the  Jewish  law,  nor  any 
additions  subsequently  made  to  the  Jewish  law  previously 
adopted  by  them,  and  that,  therefore,  all  that  is  common  to 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and  the  Jewish  law  (i.e.,  sub- 
stantially the  entire  work)  is  as  early  as  432  B.C.  As  com- 
pared with  the  Jewish  the  Samaritan  recension  shows 
certain  variations,  such  as  reading  Gerizim  in  place  of  Ebal 
in  Deut.  xxvii.  4,  and  the  expansion  of  the  narrative  in 
certain  places  by  the  addition  to  it  of  passages  found  else- 
where. For  example,  Deut.  i.  6-8  is  inserted  after  Num. 
X.  10.  These  changes  were  probably  introduced  by  the 
Samaritans  at  the  time  of,  or  later  than,  the  schism. 


52     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ca. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  EARLIER  HISTORICAL  BOOKS: 
(1)  JOSHUA  AND  JUDGES 

The  later  historical  narrative  contained  in  Chronicles, 
Ezra,  and  Nehemiah  is  probably  a  single  work.  On  the 
other  hand,  of  the  books  that  contain  the  earUer  narrative, 
not  only  does  the  Pentateuch  stand  apart,  but  the  books 
of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  Bangs,  in  spite  of  certain 
connecting  Unks,  attained  substantially  their  present  form 
by  different  editorial  processes.  Yet  those  editorial 
processes,  though  different,  have  so  much  in  common 
that  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  and  to  some  extent 
Joshua,  remain  as  the  expression  of  a  school  dominated 
by  the  ideas  and  style  of  D  (pp.  26,  31),  and  sharply  dis- 
tinguished from  Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah,  which  is  a 
work  dominated  by  the  ideas,  and,  in  some  measure,  by  the 
style  of  P  (pp.  26,  34  f.).  In  spite  of  some  minor  annotations 
or  modifications  made  from  the  standpoint  of  P,  (Joshua), 
Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  substantially  represent  his- 
tory OB  apprehended  by,  and  its  significance  for,  the  Jews 
at  the  end  of  the  seventh  and  in  the  sixth  century  B.C. ; 
Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah  the  same  history  interpreted  by 
Jews  of  about  300  B.C.  While,  then,  the  books  of  Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  cannot  in  detail  be  discussed 
together,  for  they  are  not  a  single  work,  and,  though  edited 
from  a  similar  religious  standpoint,  have  not  undergone 
exactly  the  same  editorial  processes,  two  further  facts  which 
help  to  give  them  a  certain  closeness  of  connection  and  simi- 
larity of  character  must  be  constantly  borne  in  mind  :  (1) 
these  books,  one  and  all,  rest  on  sources  :  as  the  Chronicler 


vn.]  JOSHUA  AND  JUDGES  63 

embodied  large  extracts  of  Samuel  and  Kings  in  his  work, 
so  the  authors  or  compilers  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and 
Kings  each  embodied  large  extracts  from  yet  earlier  works 
in  their  own ;  and  (2)  the  divisions  in  these  sources  do  not 
appear  to  have  coincided  with  the  divisions  represented  by 
the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  ;  in  other 
words,  two  or  more  of  these  books  cite  from  the  same 
sources  :  Joshua  and  Judges  cite  certain  identical  passages 
from  an  older  source  (p.  54) ;  and  it  is  probable  that 
Samuel  incorporates  parts  of  a  source  also  used  in  Judges 
(cp.  pp.  67,  69),  and  Kings  parts  of  a  source  used  in  Samuel 
(p.  85) .  So  much  in  general  may  be  safely  said  and  wiU  be 
substantiated  below ;  but  within  the  compass  of  the 
present  work  it  will  be  impossible  to  enter  into  all  the 
details  which  would  illustrate  more  fully  this  closeness 
of  connection. 

One  further  general  consideration  may  be  stated : 
when  we  compare  Chronicles  with  Samuel  and  Kings,  we 
find  that  the  modifications  introduced  by  the  later  writer 
entirely  change  the  impression  given,  or  the  meaning  in- 
tended, by  the  earHer  source  which  he  cites ;  it  is  necessary 
to  remember  that,  though,  not  having  the  sources,  we  can 
never  absolutely  prove  it,  the  earlier  historical  narratives 
of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  may  also,  through 
modifications  of  their  sources,  have  handed  on  to  later 
times  a  story  really  different  in  some  of  its  implications 
from  that  which  stood  in  these  sources. 

Though  Joshua  and  Judges  must  certainly  be  regarded  as 
distinct  works,  it  will  be  convenient  to  discuss  them  in  the 
first  instance  together. 

The  opening  words  of  Joshua  are,  *  And  it  came  to  pass 
after  the  death  of  Moses ' ;  the  opening  words  of  Judges 
are,  *  And  it  came  to  pass  after  the  death  of  Joshua.'  If 
we  could  regard  Joshua  and  Judges  as  two  parts  of  the  same 
work  dealing  with  two  epochs,  the  lifetime  of  Joshua  and 
the  period  that  began  with  his  death,  the  similarity  of  these 
openings  would  have  a  sufficiently  obvious  explanation  in 
common  authorship.    But  Joshua  and  Judges  are  not  the 


64     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

work  of  the  same  author,  and  we  may  attribute  the  opening 
words  of  Judges  to  an  attempt,  by  bringing  together  the 
books  of  Joshua  and  Judges,  to  obtain  as  far  as  possible 
a  continuous  history  of  Israel ;  not  improbably  this  link 
is  due  to  those  who  established  the  second  part  of  the 
Hebrew  canon,  *  the  prophets.' 

Unfortunately  the  opening  clause  of  Judges  creates  an 
impression  of  more  exact  continuity  than  is  justified  by  the 
contents  of  the  books  of  Joshua  and  Judges :  Judges  is  in 
reaUty  no  direct  continuation  of  Joshua :  it  is,  in  part  at 
least,  parallel  to  it.  The  farewell,  death,  and  burial  of 
Joshua  are  recorded  with  a  summarising  account  of  what 
followed,  not  only  at  the  end  of  the  book  of  Joshua  (xxiv. 
28-33),  but  also  in  Judges,  and  that  not  at  the  beginning  as 
though  to  estabUsh  a  continuity  or  to  recall  an  original 
continuity  of  the  books,*  but  in  ii.  6-10;  what  precedes 
Judges  ii.  6,  viz.  i.  1-ii.  6,  at  least,  is  not,  as  the  opening 
clause  of  Judges  suggests,  subsequent  to  what  is  related 
at  the  end  of  Joshua,  but  prior  to  it,  and  parallel  with  the 
first  part  of  Joshua :  a  detail  confirms  this  obvious 
conclusion  :  Gilgal,  the  headquarters  of  the  Hebrews  after 
the  passage  of  Jordan  (Josh.  iv.  19  ;  v.  10  ;  ix.  6  ;  x.  9  ; 
xiv.  6)  is  still  such  in  Judges  ii.  1  though  it  had  ceased  to 
be  so  in  Josh,  xviii.  1,  xxiv.  Further,  with  Josh.  xvi.  10, 
cp.  Judges  i.  29 ;  with  Josh.  xvii.  11-13,  cp.  Judges  i.  27  f. ; 
with  Josh.  xix.  46,  47,  cp.  Judges  xviii.  i.  34;  and  with 
Josh.  XV.  63,  cp.  Judges  i.  2. 

The  paralleHsm  of  the  books  is,  however,  in  reality  much 
greater  :  they  are  throughout  differing  accounts  of  one  and 
the  same  historical  movement — the  effective  occupation  of 
Canaan  by  the  Hebrews  :  according  to  the  book  of  Joshua 
the  whole  of  the  Hebrews  formed  a  single  army  under 
Joshua ;  the  entire  land  of  promise  *  waa  rapidly  conquered, 
and  then  distributed  among  the  twelve  tribes ;  accord- 
ing to  Judges  i.  the  several  tribes  acting  separately,  or  one 
or  two  together,  attacked  different  parts  of  the  coimtry; 

»  Cp.  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  22  f.  =E2ra  L  1-8,  and  see  p.  97* 
«  Joah.  xL  16-xiu.  « ;  xxL  43-45. 


VII.J  JOSHUA  AND  JUDGES  56 

at  first  their  success  was  very  partial,  and  it  was  but  gradu- 
ally that  they  became  masters  of  even  the  greater  part  of 
the  country.  But  Judges  i.  is  substantially  in  agreement 
with  much  of  the  remainder  of  the  book,  for  this  deals  with 
the  changing  fortunes  of  the  tribes,  now  attacking,  now 
subject  to,  now  obtaining  temporary  reUef  from  the 
Canaanites  or  others,  till  one  and  all  have  secured  settle- 
ment in  the  districts  which  they  subsequently  retained. 
It  is  not  till  towards  the  close  of  the  book  (xvii.,  xviii.)  that 
Dan  makes  good  its  position,  yet  not  till  then  did  the 
effective  occupation  of  Canaan  by  the  Hebrews  even 
approach  completion  ;  in  other  words  Judges  xviii.  carries 
down  the  historical  development  no  further  than,  if  indeed 
as  far  as,  Joshua  xxiv. ;  and  thus  the  two  books  are  in 
reahty  parallel  narratives. 

Joshua 

The  title  of  the  book  of  Joshua  defines  the  subject,  not 
the  author,  of  it.  Joshua  is  the  outstanding  figure  in  it ; 
under  his  leadership  Western  Canaan  is  conquered,  under 
his  direction  the  land  of  promise  is  divided  among  the 
twelve  tribes.  The  book  may  be  briefly  summarised  as 
follows  : — 

i.-xii. — Conquest  of  Western  Canaan.  The  book  opens 
immediately  after  the  death  of  Moses :  Joshua  has  suc- 
ceeded Moses  in  the  command  of  the  people,  who  are  still 
on  the  east  of  Jordan.  Jordan  is  crossed  and  other 
preliminaries  to  the  attack  on  Jericho,  the  city  commanding 
the  Jordan  valley,  are  carried  out  (i.-iv.).  The  Israehtes 
encamp  at  Gilgal,  and  capture  Jericho  (v.,  vi.).  Stages 
in  the  Conquest  of  Southern  Palestine  :  capture  of  Ai  (vii.  1- 
viii.  29),  submission  of  the  Gibeonites  (ix.),  defeat  of  the 
kings  of  Jerusalem  and  other  cities  of  the  south  (x.). 
Inserted  in  the  midst  of  these  is  a  brief  reference,  not 
indeed  to  the  conquest  itself,  but  to  a  step  which  implies 
the  previous  conquest  of  Central  Palestine^  viz.  the  building 
of  an  altar  on  Mount  Ebal  (viii.  30-35).     More  briefly  is 


56     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

described  the  conquest  of  Northern  Palestine  (xi.  1-15). 
Then  follows  a  summary  of  conquest,  and  a  list  of 
thirty  conquered  kings,  mostly  of  places  in  the  south, 
but  also  of  places  in  Central  and  Northern  Palestine 
(xi.  16-xii.  24). 

xiii.-xxi.  Division  of  the  conquered  land  among  the 
twelve  tribes  as  follows :  (a)  the  two  and  a  half  Eastern 
tribes,  xiii. ;  (6)  the  Western  tribes ;  in  the  South, 
Caleb- Judah  (xiv.  f.),  Benjamin  and  Simeon  (xviii.  11- 
xix.  9) ;  in  Central  Palestine,  Ephraim  and  half-Manasseh 
(xvi.  f.) ;  in  the  North,  Zebulun,  Issachar,  Asher,  Naphtali, 
Dan  (xix.  9-48).  Then  follows  the  appointment  of 
cities  of  refuge  (xx.),  and  the  allotment  of  Levitical 
cities  (xxi.). 

xxii.-xxiv. — Conclusion. — ^The  conquest  and  distribution 
of  the  land  being  complete,  Joshua  dismisses  to  their 
homes  with  his  blessing  the  Eastern  tribes,  who  had 
co-operated  in  the  Conquest  of  the  West  (xxii.),  takes 
farewell  of  the  people,  dies  and  is  buried  (xxiii.  f.). 

It  is  obvious  from  the  conclusion  that  this  book  was 
written  neither  by  Joshua,  nor  within  his  lifetime.  The 
closer  determination  of  date  and  character  must  rest 
mainly  on  conclusions  reached  in  chapters  iii.-vi.,  for 
Joshua  is  intimately  connected,  through  its  use  of  the  same 
sources,  with  the  Pentateuch.  But  there  are  certain 
entirely  independent  considerations  that  suggest  so  much 
at  least  as  this  :  the  book  was  written  long  after  the  age 
of  Joshua,  and  in  Judah.  (1)  The  presentation  of  the 
Hebrew  settlement  in  Canaan  as  the  result  of  a  rapid  and 
complete  conquest  appears  to  be  due  to  the  idealising  of 
long  past  events  :  the  book  of  Joshua  must  on  this  account 
be  judged  much  later  than  the  age  which  gave  birth  to 
the  account  in  the  first  chapter,  and  to  the  stories  that 
form  the  substance,  of  the  book  of  Judges  :  for  the  account 
in  Judges,  in  its  broad  features,  accords,  the  representation 
that  dominates  Joshua  is  entirely  at  conflict,  with  what 
the  conditions  and  historical  movements  prevailing  about 
1400  B.C.,  and  revealed  to  us  by  the  contemporary  Tell 


?n.]  JOSHUA  57 

el-Amarna  tablets,  would  lead  us  to  expect  the  nature  of 
the  Hebrew  settlement,  which  took  place  somewhat  later, 
actually  to  have  been.      (2)  In  Josh.  xv.  63  we  read : 

*  But  the  Jebusite(s),  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the 
children  of  Israel  were  unable  to  dispossess ;  and  (so) 
the  Jebusite  has  dwelt  with  the  children  of  Judah 
in  Jerusalem  until  this  day.'     With  the  substitution  of 

*  Benjamin  '  for  '  Judah  *  these  words  recur  in  Judg.  i.  21. 
Probably  in  both  books  the  words  are  cited  from  a  common, 
and  ancient  source  ;  in  any  case  there  is  no  probability  that 
Judges  borrows  from  Joshua ;  and  so  in  Joshua  at  least 
the  words  are  a  quotation.  But  these  words  throw  back 
the  (partial)  conquest  to  a  past  age,  which  is  tacitly  con- 
trasted with  '  the  present  day.'  That  we  should  infer 
from  a  comparison  with  2  Sam.  v.  4-10,  which  relates 
David's  capture  of  Jerusalem,  that  *  the  present  day '  of 
Josh.  XV.  63=Judg.  i.  21  was,  though  later  than  Joshua, 
yet  earlier  than  David  is  by  no  means  certain  ;  Jebusites 
continued  to  live  in  Jerusalem  after  David's  capture  of 
it  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  18  £f.).  In  any  case  the  book  which  cites 
the  passage  must  be  later  than  the  source  it  cites,  and 
consequently  the  product  of  an  age  later  certainly  than 
Joshua,  possibly  also  later  than  David.  (3)  The  reference 
to  the  book  of  Jashar  (x.  13)  certainly  implies  a  date  later 
than  David,  for  that  book  contained,  among  others,  poems 
of  David  (2  Sam.  i.  18).  (4)  Interest  in  South  Palestine 
and  specifically  in  Judah  dominates  the  book.  The  hero 
himself  is  indeed  an  Ephraimite  (xix.  49  f,  xxiv.  30) ;  but 
if  we  consider  the  book  of  Joshua  as  a  whole,  this  cannot 
be  said  to  receive  emphasis  ;  what  was  doubtless  a  datum 
of  tradition  is  accepted,  but  in  no  way  magnified,  by  the 
author  of  the  book.  On  the  other  hand,  both  in  the 
aocount  of  the  Conquest  and  in  that  of  the  division  of  the 
land  the  South  is  dealt  with  much  more  fully,  and  the 
district  of  Judah  is  more  minutely  described  than  that  of 
any  other  tribe.  The  conquest  of  Central  Palestine, 
the  territory  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  is  entirely 
omitted,  and  it  is  only  at  the  end  of  the  book  that  this 


58     CRrriCAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [CH. 

district  comes  into  any  prominence ;  and  then  almost  of 
necessity,  for  Joshua  naturally  goes  to  his  own  country 
to  make  his  farewell  and  die. 

Presupposing  the  conclusions  of  the  criticism  of  the 
Pentateuch  we  may  formulate  a  theory  of  the  origin  of 
Joshua  as  follows  :  early  narratives  (J,  E),  written  perhaps 
in  the  ninth  and  eighth  centuries  B.C.  respectively,  carried 
down  the  history  of  God's  guidance  of  His  people  to  the 
point  at  which  it  culminated  in  the  settlement  of  the 
people  in  the  land  that  God  had  promised  them ;  a  later 
work  (P),  written  about  500  B.C.,  carried  down  the  history 
to  the  same  point.  In  the  earUer  narratives  the  Conquest 
of  Canaan  was  represented  as  gradual ;  but  an  editor, 
D^  (p.  42),  though  drawing  mainly  on  these  sources  (J,  E), 
so  modified  them  by  large  additions  of  his  own,  that,  in 
spite  of  some  tell-tale  fragments  left  unmodified,  the  new 
narrative  as  a  whole  gave  the  impression  that  the  conquest 
was  rapid  and  complete.  This  work  was  subsequently 
expanded  by  another  editor  (R^),  who  inserted  brief 
passages  *  from  P  into  the  story  of  the  conquest,  and 
much  more  extensive  passages*  from  the  same  source 
into  the  story  of  the  distribution  of  the  land. 


Judges 

Saul  (c.  1050  B.C.)  was  the  first  Hebrew  king ;  the  time 
before  Saul  forms,  therefore,  an  epoch  of  a  distinct  char- 
acter: it  is  the  pre-monarchic  period  in  the  history  of 
the  Hebrews  in  Canaan.  This  period,  with  the  exception 
of  its  closing  years,  is  the  subject  of  the  book  of  Judges ; 
and  since  the  period  extended  over  at  least  some  generations 
the  book  of  Judges  cannot  be  a  contemporary  record  of 
all  the  events  described  in  it.    But,  further,  the  book  in 

»  tv.  18, 15-17,  19  ;  v.  10-12  ;  vii.  1 ;  ix.  16b,  17-21.  See  Drirer,  Introduction 
to  th4  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  159. 

«  xiii.  16-82;  xiv.  1-5;  xv.  1-13,  20-44  (45-47),  48-62;  xvi  4-8;  xvii.  la, 
8,  4.  7,  9ft,  9c.l0a;  xviii.  1,  11-28;  xix.  1-8,  10-46,  48  61;  xx.  1-8  (except 
*and  unaware!');  xx.  «*  (to  'judgment'),  7-9  (cp.  LXX.);  xxi.  1-42  (xxlL 
9-84).    SMDriTer,2,«. 


vn.]  JUDGES  69 

its  present  form  is  very  much  later  than  the  period 
which  is  the  subject  of  it ;  there  are  several  allusions  in 
it  to  the  monarchy,^  and  one  (xviii.  30)  unmistakable 
allusion  to  the  captivity  of  Northern  Israel  in  the  eighth 
century  B.C.  A  closer  examination  and  analysis  of  the 
book  suggests  other  sufficiently  probable  and  more  precise 
conclusions. 

Judges  consists  of  three  unequal  and  dissimilar  sections  : 
(1)  i.  1-ii.  5,  introduction :  the  partial  conquest  of  Canaan 
by  the  Hebrew  tribes ;  (2)  li.  6-xvi.  31,  stories  of  the 
DeUverers  or  Judges  of  Israel ;  (3)  xvii.-xxi.,  an  appendix, 
containing  other  stories  of  the  pre-monarchic  period. 

The  theory  now  commonly  held  is  that  the  central 
portion  of  the  book  (ii.  6-xvi.  31)  contains  a  history  of  the 
period  of  the  Judges  written  about  600  B.C.,  and  that 
this  history  was  subsequently  (say  c.  400  B.C.)  expanded  into 
the  form  of  the  present  book  by  prefixing  (a)  ch.  i.,  (6)  ii. 
1-5,  and  by  appending  chs.  xvii.-xxi.,  and  probably  by 
making  certain  insertions  (see  below,  p.  63).  All  three 
sections  of  the  book  ahke  incorporate  a  large  amount  of 
material  derived  from  sources  very  much  earKer  than 
600  B.C.  The  general  nature  of  the  reasons  for  this  theory 
will  become  clear  from  a  somewhat  fuller  examination  of 
certain  characteristics  of  the  book,  and  in  particular  of 
ii.  6-xvi.  31. 

The  central  section  (ii.  6-xvi.  31)  of  Judges  consists  of 
brief  notices  or  longer  narratives  of  a  number  of  people, 
who  '  judged  *  or  ruled  Israel,  fitted  into  a  moralising  and 
chronological  framework  as  follows  ; — 

1  XTii.  d,  ZTiii.  1,  ziz.  1,  zxL  9& 


60     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 


Period  of 
(o)  pre- 

Fnmework 

Notice  or 
NarratiT. 

Name  of 
Judge,  etc. 

Tribe  or 
locality 
of  Judge 

Preceding 
Oppressor 

ceding 
oppres- 
sion, (b) 
Judge- 
ship 

il  (6),  7.  (8-10),  11-23 

(ui.  1-6) 

(iii  7-11) 

Othniel 

Caleb 

Aram- 
Naharaim 

a.    8 
6.40 

iiLl2-15a,iii.29f. 

iii.  156-28 

Ehud 

Benjamin 

Moab 

«.18 
6.80 

iii.  81 

Shamgar 

Philistines 

ir.  1-8,  T.  81ft 

ir.  4-v.  80  a 

f  Deborah 
\  Barak 

Ephraim 
Naphtali 

/  N.  Cana- 
\  anites 

a.' 20 
6.40 

(vi.  1-10),  viiL  28, 

vi.ll-vm.27a 

Gideon, 

Manasseh 

Midian 

a.    7 

83-5 

ix. 

followed 
bv  his  son 
Abimelech 

6.  40 

6.    3 

X.  If. 

Tola 

Issachar 

••• 

6.23 

x.8-5 

Jair 

Gilead 

... 

6.22 

(x.6-18)(xiL7) 

xi  1-xil.  6 

Jephthah 

Gilead 

Ammon 

a.  18 
6.    6 

xii.  8-10 

Ibzan 

Bethlehem 

... 

6!    7 

xii.  11-12 

Elon 

Zebulon 

... 

6.10 

xii.  13-16 

Abdon 

Ephraim 

... 

6.    8 

xm.  1,  IV.  20  (xTi. 

xiii.  2-xv.  19 

Samson 

Dan 

Philistines 

a.  40 

81b) 

xvi. 

6.20 

Total    .    410  year* 

The  author  of  the  framework  had  a  very  clear  theory  of 
the  period  and  expressed  it  cleariy :  after  the  death  of 
Joshua,  the  Israelites  proved  disloyal  to  Yahweh  ;  Yahweh 
punished  them  by  deUvering  them  into  the  hand  of  their 
enemies,  but,  as  often  as  they  cried  to  him  for  help,  raised 
up  a  deliverer,  who  overthrew  the  oppressor  and  gave  the 
people  peace  for  a  long  period.  The  tenses  in  ii.  18  f.,  a 
passage  which  states  the  theory  summarily,  are  frequenta- 
tives  :  the  entire  period,  according  to  this  general  state- 
ment of  the  writer,  consisted  of  recurrent  cycles  of  sin, 
punishment,  penitence,  deliverance  and  peace — of  periods 
of  oppression  closing  in  a  cry  to  God  for  help,  moments  of 
deUverance,  and  periods  of  freedom  and  prosperity  closing 
in  forgetf ulness  of  God. 

The  periods  of  enslavement  and  freedom   consist   in 


vn.J  JUDGES  61 

40 
several  instances  of  40,  or  40x2,  or  —  years ;   the  total 

of  410  years  added  to  the  date  of  Saul  (c.  1050)  would 
carry  back  the  beginning  of  the  period  into  the  fifteenth 
century  B.C.,  when,  as  the  contemporary  Tell  el-Amama 
tablets  indicate,  the  Hebrew  tribes  were  not  yet  settled  in 
Canaan.  The  chronology  of  the  book  must,  therefore,  be 
regarded  as  an  incorrect  and  artificial  scheme. 

But  the  chronology  is  not  the  only  artificial  element  in 
the  framework :  the  judges  are  not  only  fitted  into  a 
definite  and  exact  chronological  sequence,  they  become 
one  and  all  deliverers  or  rulers  of  all  Israel :  they  judge 
Israel,  and  under  them  the  land,  i.e.,  the  entire  land  of  all 
the  Hebrew  tribes,  enjoys  rest.  Yet  when  we  pass  from 
the  introductory  and  closing  remarks  into  the  heart  of  the 
stories  of  the  several  judges,  the  judges  appear  as  tribal  or 
local  heroes :  e.g.,  Samson,  according  to  the  framework, 
judged  (all)  Israel ;  but  his  exploits  are  confined  to  a 
small  district  in  the  south-west  of  the  land  of  Israel.  And 
similarly  Gideon  is  the  deKverer  and  ruler  of  central 
Palestine.  Deborah  and  Barak,  indeed,  summoned  to 
their  aid  most  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  (though  not  Judah) : 
yet  their  exploit  was  a  deliverance,  at  least  primarily,  of 
Northern  Palestine  :  and  there  is  no  indication  either  in  the 
story  of  ch.  iv.,  or  the  poem  of  ch.  v.,  that  either  Barak  or 
Deborah  continued  to  judge  the  whole  people,  or  to  rule 
over  the  whole  land. 

The  tone  and  style  of  the  framework  bring  it  into  close 
relation  with  Deuteronomy  ;  if  the  publication  of  Deuter- 
onomy is  rightly  placed  in  621,  the  editing  of  old  stories  of 
the  judges  in  a  manner  and  with  additions  that  point  the 
moral  of  the  reforming  school  of  Josiah's  reign  may  be  with 
probability  placed  about  600  B.C. 

The  stories  incorporated  in  and  forming  the  bulk  of  this 
Deuteronomic  history  of  the  Judges  appear  themselves  to 
have  been  drawn  from  different  sources :  this  is  most 
obvious  in  the  two  accounts  of  Deborah  and  Barak  ;  one 
of  these  (ch.  iv.)  is  in  prose,  the  other  (ch.  v.)  is  in  verse. 


Q2      CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

and  there  are  material,  as  well  as  these  formal,  differences 
between  the  two  accounts.  The  song  in  ch.  v.  is  the 
oldest  element  in  the  book  of  Judges,  and  not  improbably 
the  oldest  surviving  piece  of  Hebrew  Uterature  :  it  appears 
to  have  been  composed  by  a  contemporary  of  the  events 
described,  and  these  must  have  occurred  about  1100  B.C. 
From  V.  7,  as  rendered  in  R.  V.,  it  might,  indeed,  be  inferred 
that  Deborah  herself  was  the  composer  of  the  song ;  but 
that  verse  should  rather  read,  *  until  thou,  Deborah,  didst 
arise,  till  thou  didst  arise,'  etc.,  or  *  imtil  Deborah 
arose  .  .  .  arose '  (so  the  most  ancient  versions).  Else- 
where in  the  poem  Deborah  is  addressed  (v.  12),  or  spoken 
of  in  the  third  person  (v.  15). 

The  stories  of  Samson  are  homogeneous,  and  are  derived 
from  a  source  that  has  affinities,  and  is  by  some  identified, 
with  the  source  so  largely  drawn  upon  in  the  Hexateuch 
and  known  as  J  (ninth  century  B.C.,  see  p.  37).  From  the 
same  source  may  be  derived  the  story  of  Ehud,  and  parts  of 
the  stories  of  Gideon  and  Abimelech ;  but  in  these  last 
stories  the  extracts  from  this  source  are  combined  with 
extracts  from  another  source  {e.g.,  ix.  1-21,  42-55)  having 
some  affinities  with,  and  again  by  some  identified  with, 
the  source  E  (eighth  century  B.C.,  p.  44)  of  the  Pentateuch. 
For  fuller  details,  reference  must  be  made  to  the  critical 
commentaries  on  the  book. 

The  question  has  arisen :  Did  the  Deuteronomic  editor 
himself  combine  these  different  sources,  or  did  he  make 
use  of  an  earlier  pre-Deuteronomic  book  of  Judges  in  which 
the  combination  had  already  taken  place  ?  The  latter 
alternative  is  not  improbable,  and  may  be  kept  in  view 
in  considering  some  further  pecuUarities  of  the  central 
section  of  the  present  book. 

A  reference  back  to  the  contents  of  the  book  as  given  on 
p.  60  will  show  that  six  only  of  the  stories  are  really  fitted 
into  the  framework ;  only  in  the  case  of  Othniel,  Ehud, 
Deborah-Barak,  Gideon,  Jephthah  and  Samson  have  we 
all  three  data  that  the  scheme  of  the  framework  requires, 
viz.  (1)  a  foreign  oppression  before  the  appearance  of  the 


VTL]  JUDGES  63 

judge,  (2)  the  length  of  this  oppression,  and  (3)  the  length  of 
the  period  of  rest  that  followed  the  deUverance.  The  brief 
notice  of  Shamgar  mentions  indeed  an  oppressor,  but 
neither  gives  the  origin  of  the  judge,  nor  defines  the  period 
either  of  oppression  or  rule.  The  judgeships  of  Jair,  Ibzan, 
Elon  and  Abdon  follow  no  period  of  oppression :  nor  is 
either  the  nature  or  the  period  of  the  preceding  oppres- 
sion stated  in  the  notice  of  Tola.  And  the  long  story  of 
Abimelech  stands  also  free  of  the  framework.  In  brief, 
within  the  central  portion  of  the  present  book  of  Judges 
we  have  sections  which,  Uke  the  Introduction  (i.  1-ii.  6) 
and  the  Appendix  (xvii.-xxi.),  stand  free  of  the  framework. 
It  may  be  that  all  these  sections  ahke,  and  not  merely  the 
Introduction  and  Appendix,  were  absent  from  the  Deutero- 
nomic  book  of  Judges.  Then  we  may  frame  a  more 
detailed  theory  of  the  origin  and  history  of  our  book  as 
follows : — 

Oral  stories  of  the  pre-monarchic  period,  and  songs 
composed  at  that  period,  were  in  circulation  in  Israel 
during  the  earher  monarchic  period :  some  of  these  were 
collected  and  written  down  in  various  Uterary  works 
during,  say,  the  ninth  and  eighth  centuries  B.C.  In  the 
seventh  century,  a  writer  drawing  on  more  than  one 
of  such  Uterary  sources,  and  himself  perhaps  providing 
a  chronological  framework,  and  generahsing  the  local 
leaders  into  rulers  of  all  Israel,  composed  what  we  may 
term  the  pre-Deuteronomic  book  of  Judges :  this  con- 
tained the  greater  part  of  what  now  stands  in  Judges 
(apart  from  the  Deuteronomic  framework),  and  not  impro- 
bably stories  also  of  the  last  judges,  EU  and  Samuel,  some 
of  which  now  appear  in  1  Samuel.  About  600  B.C.  the 
Jewish  editor  of  the  Deuteronomic  book  of  Judges  extracted 
from  the  pre-Deuteronomic  book  of  Judges  the  stories 
of  (Othniel),  Ehud,  Deborah-Barak,  Gideon,  Jephthah, 
Samson,  placed  the  notice  of  the  Calebite,  i.e.  Jewish,  hero, 
Othniel,  whom  the  earlier  work  had  noticed,  if  at  all,  but 
scantly,  at  the  place  of  honour  at  the  head  of  the  series  of 
judges,  and  provided  the  whole  with  its  moralising  and 


64     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

generalising  framework.  Both  books  lived  on,  the  more 
extensive  and  less  moralising  pre-Deuteronomic,  and  the 
smaller  but  more  moralising  Deuteronomic,  books  of  Judges, 
till  another  editor  expanded  the  Deuteronomic  book  by 
adding  much  that  had  been  omitted  from  it  of  the  pre- 
Deuteronomic  work.  One  object  which  he  had  in  view 
was  to  produce  a  work  on  *  the  Twelve  Judges  of  Israel.' 
For  this  purpose  he  added  the  five  brief  and  similar  notes 
on  the  five  judges  mentioned  in  x.  1-5,  xii.  8-15,  and  the 
longer  story  of  Abimelech  who  is  impUed  by  x.  1  to  have 
formed  one  of  the  series  of  deliverers  or  judges.  Yet  later 
some  reader  of  the  book  of  the  Twelve  Judges,  thinking 
Abimelech  no  true  member  of  the  series,  completed  the 
number  twelve  by  introducing  the  short  note  on  Shamgar 
who  (like  Samson)  delivered  from  the  Phihstines ;  but 
perhaps  he  inserted  his  note  not  where  it  now  stands  in 
iii.  31,  but  after  xvi.  31,  where  certain  MSS.  of  the  LXX. 
read,  '  And  after  Samson  arose  Shamgar  *  etc. 

The  other  additions  made  by  the  editor  of  *  the  Book  of 
the  Twelve  Judges '  may  have  included  ch.  xvi.,  for  it 
would  be  easy  to  explain  the  curious  way  in  which  xv.  16 
anticipates  xvi.  31b,  if  we  suppose  that  the  Deuteronomic 
editor  brought  his  story  to  an  end  with  the  concluding 
formula  in  xv.  20. 

The  Introduction  (i.  1-ii.  5)  and  Appendix  (xvii.-xxi.), 
together  with  certain  sections  within  ii.  6-xvi.  31,  show  no 
trace  of  the  pecuUar  Deuteronomic  tone  and  style  of  the 
author  of  the  framework.  In  the  main  both  Introduction 
and  Appendix  seem  to  go  back  ultimately  to  an  early  source 
having  affinities  with  the  early  Hexateuchal  source  J  (see 
also  p.  27).  But  in  chs.  xix.-xxi.  (more  especially  chs. 
xx.-xxi.)  the  story  derived  from  this  old  source  appears  to 
have  been  extensively  modified  by  a  writer  of  Midrashic 
(cp.  p.  95)  tendencies :  in  parts  of  the  story  Israel  acts 
together  '  as  a  single  man  *  ;  this  particular  trait  by  itself 
might  suggest  a  Deuteronomic  editor  (cp.  Joshua,  Deutero- 
nomic book  of  Judges)  ;  but  the  phraseology  suggests  the 
influence  of  a  still  later  school,  that,  namely,  of  P  of  the 


viLi  .  JUDGES  ee 

Hexateuch  ;  Israel  is,  as  in  Ex.  xii.  3  and  frequently  in  P, 
*  the  congregation/  and  allusion  is  made  to  Aaron's  grand- 
son Phinehas  (xx.  28).  Following  this  clue  we  may,  if  P 
is  correctly  dated  c.  500  B.C.,  fix  the  date  of  the  history  of 
the  Twelve  Judges  with  Introduction  and  Appendix  about 
400  B.a 


ee     CRITICAL  INTRODUanON  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  EARLIER  HISTORICAL  BOOKS:    (2)  1   AND  2  SAMUEL 

The  historical  work  entitled  Samuel  was  originally,  as  it 
continued  to  be  in  Hebrew  MSS.,  and  in  printed  editions 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible  prior  to  1517  a.d.,  an  undivided 
narrative.  In  the  Septuagint,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
divided  into  two  books;  and  these  are  by  title  closely 
connected  with  Kings  :  1  and  2  Samuel  and  1  and  2  Kings 
are  in  the  Septuagint,  1,  2,  3,  and  4  Kingdoms  (Jerome : 
Kings). 

The  subject  of  Samuel  is  the  estabUshment  of  the  Hebrew 
monarchy :  it  is  at  the  same  time  a  record  of  three  Uves 
that  overlap,  viz.,  of  (a)  Samuel — priest,  seer,  prophet, 
judge,  1  Sam.  i.-xii. ;  (b)  Saul — king,  1  Sam.  xiii.-xxxi. ; 
(c)  David — king,  2  Sam.  The  work  has  also  been  differ- 
ently divided  so  as  to  bring  out  a  dramatic  characteristic 
of  it ;  1  Sam.  i.-vii.  depicts  Samuel  superseding  Eh ; 
1  Sam.  viii.-xv.  Saul  superseding  Samuel ;  1  Sam.  xvi.-2  Sam. 
viii.  David  superseding  Saul;  and  2  Sam.  ix.-l  Kings  ii. 
David's  sons  superseding  David. 

The  history  of  the  monarchy  begun  in  Samuel  is  com- 
pleted in  Kings ;  Samuel  and  Kings  together  relate  the 
estabhshment  of  the  monarchy  and  the  history  of  the 
Hebrew  people  under  it.  The  common  subject,  the 
common  title,  and  the  fact  that  the  last  days  and  death 
of  David  are  related  not  in  Samuel  but  in  Kings  suggest 
an  intimate  connection  between  Samuel  and  Kings,  if 
not  indeed  an  original  unity. 

But  the  period  which  from  one  standpoint  may  be 
regarded  as  that  of  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy  is. 


vm.]  SAMUEL  67 

regarded  from  another,  the  conclusion  of  the  period  of  the 
Judges.  Samuel  was  the  king-maker,  and  as  such  stands 
at  the  head  of  the  history  of  the  monarchy  recorded  in 
Samuel  and  Kings ;  he  was  also,  together  with  his  sons 
(1  Sam.  viii.  1),  the  last  of  the  judges,  whose  history  forms 
the  subject  of  the  book  of  Judges :  Samuel  judged  Israel 
forty  (LXX.  twenty)  years  (1  Sam.  iv.  18),  or,  as  it  is  other- 
wise put,  '  all  the  days  of  his  life '  (1  Sam.  vii.  16). 
Moreover,  the  monarchy  arose  in  the  conflict  of  the 
Hebrews  with  the  Philistines,  and  the  opening  stages  or 
scenes  of  that  conflict  are  recorded  not  in  Samuel,  but  in 
Judges. 

Thus  Samuel  is  intimately  connected  both  with  Judges 
and  Kings :  it  is  the  complement  to  the  one,  the  prelude  to 
the  other  work.  This  fact  becomes  significant  when  we 
attempt  to  trace  the  original  history  of  the  books  of  Samuel. 

The  period  covered  by  Samuel  is  nearly  the  equivalent  of 
two  long  lives :  it  extends  from  the  days  immediately 
preceding  the  birth  of  Samuel  to  the  days  immediately 
preceding  the  death  of  David,  and  the  years  common  to 
the  Uves  of  Samuel  and  David  scarcely  exceeded  twenty- 
five.  Approximately,  then,  the  period  covered  by  Samuel 
is  a  century,  say,  from  about  1070,  or,  as  others  put  it, 
1050,  to  about  970  B.C.  It  follows  that  Samuel,  unUke 
Kings,  covers  a  period  that  could  fall  within  a  couple  of 
memories ;  it  might,  so  far  as  this  consideration  alone  is 
concerned,  have  been  written  from  the  direct  knowledge  of 
an  old  man  at  the  close  of  David's  reign,  and  the  information 
given  to  him  by  his  father.  Again,  Samuel,  imlike  Kings, 
does  not  regularly  refer  to  sources  as  containing  information 
about  the  past  which  the  author  is  describing :  the  one 
source  cited  by  name  is  the  book  of  Jashar :  ^  this  is  said  to 
have  contained  David's  elegy  over  Saul  and  Jonathan. 
Other  poems  or  poetical  fragments,  certainly  or  presumably 
not  the  work  of  the  author  of  Samuel,  are  the  song  of 
Hannah  (1  Sam.  ii.  1-10),  the  women's  distich  (1  Sam.  xviii. 
7,xxi.  11,  xxix.  5), David's  elegy  over  Abner  (2  Sam.  iii.33f.), 
»  2  Sam.  i.  18 ;  cp.  Jos.  x.  13. 


68     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

Ps.  xviii.  (=2  Sam.  xxii.),  David's  last  words  (2  Sam.  xxiii. 
1-7) ;  but  no  source  is  cited  for  any  of  these,  nor  is  it 
necessarily  implied  that  the  author  knew  of  them  in  written 
form. 

Is  it,  then,  possible,  that  Samuel  was  written  by  a  con- 
temporary of  David  ?  It  is,  of  course,  impossible  that 
Samuel  himself  wrote  the  book  (see  p.  6),  for  more  than 
half  of  it  describes  the  period  subsequent  to  the  death  of 
Samuel.  But  in  its  present  form  it  cannot  even  have  been 
written  by  any  other  contemporary,  elder  or  younger,  of 
David ;  for  in  1  Sam.  xxvii.  6  we  read  that  *  Ziklag  per- 
taineth  unto  the  kings  of  Judah  unto  this  day  * ;  and  the 
author  of  these  words  obviously  Uved  after  the  disruption 
of  the  monarchy  that  followed  the  death  of  Solomon,  and 
after  there  had  already  been  several  kings  of  the  separate 
kingdom  of  Judah.  Moreover,  in  1  Sam.  xxx.  25, 2  Sam.  vi.  8 
the  days  of  David  are  regarded  as  belonging  to  a  past  age. 
*  Affinities  in  thought  and  expression  with  Deuteronomy  * 
point  to  the  influence  on  parts  of  the  book  of  the  seventh 
or  even  of  the  sixth  century ;  see  e.gr.  1  Sam.  ii.  27-36. 

But  if  the  compilation  of  Samuel  must  be  placed  centuries 
after  the  death  of  David,  it  is  possible  and,  indeed,  highly 
probable,  that  there  are  embedded  in  these  books  records 
much  less  remote  from  the  period  which  they  describe ; 
for,  in  spite  of  the  absence  of  references  to  sources,  the 
occurrences  of  duplicate  narratives  and  some  disorder 
and  lack  of  continuity  indicate  somewhat  clearly  that  the 
author  of  Samuel,  Uke  the  authors  of  Judges,  Kings,  and 
Chronicles,  incorporated  in  his  own  work  large  parts  of 
earlier  works. 

Down  to  the  end  of  1  Sam.  vii.  the  order  and 
development  of  events  is  not  conspicuously  broken,  nor 
is  there  any  obvious  duplication  of  narratives,  though  a 
closer  examination  may  discover  reasons  for  questioning  the 
homogeneity  of  even  this  section  of  the  work,  and  for  con- 
cluding that  much  is  of  considerably  earlier  origin  than  the 
late  passage  at  the  end  of  the  second  chapter  (ii.  27-36). 

It  is  not,  however,  until  we  reach  the  account  of  how 


vm.]  SAMUEL  69 

Saul  became  king  (1  Sam.  8-12)  that  it  becomes  quite 
evident  that  Samuel  is  based,  in  part  at  least,  on  two 
records  that  regarded  the  same  events  from  different 
standpoints.  And  not  only  is  the  narrative  based  on  two 
different  records,  but  it  consists  almost  entirely  of 
alternating  extracts  from  them.  It  wiU  be  found  that 
chs.  viii.,  X.  17-24*,  xii.  tell  the  story  in  question  in  one 
way ;  chs.  ix.-x.  16,2  xi.  1-11  ^  in  another ;  for  brevity 
of  reference  the  last-named  passages  may  be  referred  to  as 
A,  the  former  as  B.  Briefly  summarised,  so  as  to  bring 
out  the  more  significant  differences,  these  two  stories  run 
as  follows  :  according  to  A,  Saul  in  search  of  his  father's 
asses  comes  to  Samuel,  not  as  it  would  have  seemed  to 
him  at  the  time  through  a  mere  accident,  but  led  by 
Yahweh,  who  had  the  previous  day  (ix.  16)  told  Samuel 
to  expect  him,  and,  when  he  came,  to  anoint  him  leader 
or  prince  (n'gid)  ;  for,  by  means  of  Saul,  Yahweh  intends 
to  deUver  his  people  from  the  Philistines,  who  are  now 
oppressing  them,*  and  against  whom  they  have  cried  to 
him,^  not  (as  in  viii.  5,  19  f.)  specifically  for  a  king, 
but,  as  those  who  have  been  wronged,  for  help.  Samuel, 
thus  warned,  receives  Saul  with  honour,  anoints  him 
leader  (x.  1),  and  teUs  him  that  the  spirit  of  Yahweh  will 
invade  him  and  that,  thereafter,  he  is  to  seize  the  (first) 
opportunity  of  exercising  his  leadership  (x.  7).  A  month 
or  so  later*  this  opportunity  presents  itself,  and  Saul 
seizes  it :  he  dehvers  Jabesh-Gilead  from  the  assault  and 
threats  of  the  Ammonites  (xi.  11)  :  thereupon  the  people 
make  Saul  king  at  Gilgal  (xi.  15).  The  subsequent  narra 
tives  of  chs.  xiii.'  and  xiv.  relate  how  Saul  carried  out 
the  main  purpose  for  which  Yahweh  had  selected  him 
(ix.  16)  by  deHvering  the  people  from  the  PhiHstines. 

In  story  B  we  find  the  same  dramatis  personce — Yahweh, 
Samuel,  Saul,  the  people — but  the  attitudes  and  motives  of 

1  Or  X.  17-27  (to  *  present ').  2  Perhaps  omitting  x.  8. 

»  Reading  in  x;  27  b,  xi.  1,  '  And  it  came  to  pass  after  about  a  month  that 
Nahash  the  Ammonite,'  etc.  (so  LXX.). 
*  Cp.  Judg.  X.  7.  6  Cp.  Judg.  X.  16.  •  xi.  1  LXX.  ;  see  note  a 

y  In  ch.  xiii.  rers.  8-15a,  19-22  may  be  later. 


70     CRITICAL  INTRODUCnON  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [cjh. 

the  several  actors  are  entirely  different.  The  starting 
point  here  is  not  Yahweh's  solicitude  for  his  people,  but 
the  bUndness  of  the  people  to  their  own  peculiar  destiny 
and  privileges  which  leads  them  into  a  treasonable  dis- 
regard of  the  existing  sovereignty  of  Yahweh  (viii.  7,  x.  19), 
so  that  they  demand  a  king  that  they  may  be  '  Uke  the 
nations '  (viii.  6).  The  occasion  of  this  demand  is  the 
evil  conduct  of  Samuel's  sons,  whom  in  his  old  age  he  had 
appointed  his  deputies  to  judge  the  people.  Samuel  is 
offended  at  the  demand,  but  Yahweh,  though  he  treats 
it  as  treasonable,  grants  it,  at  the  same  time  instructing 
Samuel  to  draw  for  the  people  a  vivid  picture  of  all  the 
tyrannical  acts  of  kings  (viii.  9  ff.).  Samuel  summons 
the  people  to  Mizpah  (x.  17),  and  there  discovers,  by  means 
of  successive  lots  (x.  19-21),  whom  Yahweh  has  chosen  to 
be  king.  Having  thus  served  as  Yahweh's  instrument  in 
satisfying  the  demand  of  the  people,  and  presenting  them 
with  a  king  (xii.  1),  Samuel  takes  farewell  of  the  people ; 
he  promises  that  in  future  Yahweh  will  overlook  their 
treason  (xii.  12,  19  f.),  if  they  and  their  king  obey  him 
(xii.  14) ;  but  a  thimderstorm  in  harvest  is  brought  about 
at  Samuel's  invocation  to  bring  home  to  them  the  wicked- 
ness they  have  committed  (xii.  17).  Saul  does  not  obey 
Yahweh  (ch.  xv.,  especially  v.  22) ;  he  is,  therefore, 
rejected,  and  if  ch.  xv.  was,  as  it  may  well  have  been,  the 
immediate  sequel  to  ch.  xii.,  then  according  to  story  B,  Saul 
was  no  sooner  king  than  he  provoked  Yahweh's  anger  and 
was  rejected  by  him.  The  brief  allusion  to  the  war  with 
Amalek  in  xiv.  48  breathes  a  different  spirit. 

Thus  the  story  of  the  origin  of  the  monarchy  is 
characterised  not  merely  by  duplications,  nor  even  merely 
by  such  apparent  inconsistency  of  details  as  the  statement 
in  xi.  16,  that  the  king-making  took  place  at  Gilgal,  and  in 
X.  17  that  it  took  place  at  Mizpah.  The  story  as  it  now 
stands  is  alternately  dominated  by  two  entirely  different 
judgments  of  the  Heorew  monarchy  :  the  kingship  appears 
now  as  an  unsolicited  blessing  given  by  Yahweh  to  his 
people  for  their  comfort  and  help,  now  as  a  thing  coveted 


vin.]  SAMUEL  71 

by  the  people,  and,  in  response  to  their  demand,  given  to 
them  indeed  by  Yahweh,  but  as  a  means  of  chastisement, 
for  the  king  will  treat  them  ill  (viii.  9  ff.). 

A  difference  such  as  this  indicates  that  the  present 
narrative  is  a  combination  of  two  narratives  originally 
distinct.  To  the  person  who  combined  these  narratives, 
or  to  some  later  hand,  we  may  attribute  some  superficial 
attempts  to  connect  the  two,  such  as  the  clause  inserted 
in  B,  *  and  when  ye  saw  that  Nahash,  the  King  of  Ammon, 
came  against  you '  (xii.  12),  which  refers  back  to  an 
incident  related  in  A  (xi.),  but  not  in  B. 

Duplication  of  mutually  discordant  narratives  is  scarcely 
less  evident  in  the  account  of  the  choice  of  David  and  of 
his  introduction  to  Saul.  According  to  one  story  (A),* 
David  is  first  introduced  to  Saul  as  a  skilful  harpist  who 
is  to  charm  away  the  melancholia  of  the  king,  and  who  is, 
thereafter,  Hke  other  brave  men,  whom  Saul  was  con- 
stantly watching  to  discover,  employed  by  Saul  also 
against  the  Philistines  (xiv.  52)  :  by  his  striking  success 
he  wins  popular  favour,  but  at  the  same  time  excites  the 
envy  of  the  king,  who,  utilising  David's  affection  for  his 
daughter  Michal,  endeavours  by  a  stratagem  to  get  rid  of 
him :  the  stratagem  fails,  and  David  marries  Michal. 
According  to  the  other  story  (B),*  David,  while  yet  unknown 
to  Saul  or  his  court,  first  distinguishes  himself  in  the  con- 
flict with  the  Philistines  by  slaying  Goliath  (contrast  2  Sam. 
xxi.  19),  and  in  consequence  of  this  success  is  from  that 
time  forward  attached  to  the  court.  Here,  too,  David 
arouses  popular  favour  and  the  fear  of  the  king ;  the 
king's  stratagem  is  more  vaguely  alluded  to,  but  in  this 
story  Saul  breaks  his  promise,  and  when  the  time  comes 
withholds  from  David  the  hand  of  his  daughter,  here 
called  Merab,  and  gives  her  to  another. 

Again  chs.  xxiv.  and  xxvi.  are  more  probably  two 
different  versions  of  a  popular  story  than  records  of  two 
similar,  but  distinct,  series  of  events. 

1  1  Sam.  xiv.  62  ;  xvi.  14-23  ;    xviii.  6-11,  20^ 
«  1  Sam.  xvii.-xviii.  4  ;  xviiL  13-19. 


72     CRITICAL  mTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [CH. 

Obviously,  two  such  sources  as  the  phenomena  which 
have  just  been  observed  indicate  need  not  throughout 
have  covered  precisely  the  same  ground  ;  each  may  have 
treated  of  matters  that  were  left  unnoticed  in  the  other. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  would  be  conceivable  that  A  and 
B  in  chs.  viii.-xv.  and  in  chs.  xvi.-xix.  were  not  derived 
from  the  same  two  works,  but  that  more  than  two  sources 
were  drawn  upon  in  these  and  other  chapters.  Yet,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  greater  part  of  1  and  2  Samuel  may  be 
divided  up  into  narratives  that  are  at  least  related  to  A, 
and  narratives  related  to  B,  whether  that  relation  be 
throughout  one  due  to  identity  of  authorship,  or  merely 
to  the  similarity  of  style  and  standpoint  shared  by  two 
or  more  writers  of  the  same  school. 

Belonging  to,  or  related  to,  A  are  (following  Budde's 
analysis,  but  without  noting  here  glosses  and  minor 
intrusions),  1  Sam.  ix.-x.  7,  9-16 ;  xi.  1-11,  14,  16  ;  xiii. 
1-7, 15  (from  '  And  Saul  ')-18,  23  ;  xiv.  1-46, 52  ;  xvi.  14-23  ; 
xviii.  5-11,  20-30 ;  xx.  1-4,  18-39  ;  xx.  42 ;  xxii.  1-5,  6-9, 11- 
19,  21-23 ;  xxiii.  1-14,  19-28 ;  xxiv.  1-20,  23  (from  *  And 
Saul  *)  ;  XXV.  2-44 ;  xxvii.  1-xxviii.  15 ;  xxviii.  19  (from 
'  and  on  the  morrow ')  -25  ;  xxix.-xxxi. ;  2  Sam.  i.  1-4,  11, 
12,  17-27  ;  ii.  1-v.  3  ;  v.  6-25 ;  vi.  viii.  7-18 ;  ix.-xii.  7 
(to  *  the  man  *),  9  (from  *  thou  hast  smitten '),  13-31 ; 
xiii.-xiv.  24  ;  xiv.  28-33  ;  xv.-xx.  22  ;  xxi.  16-22  ;  xxiii. 
5-39 ;  xxiv. 

Related  to  B  are  1  Sam.  i.,  ii.  11-26 ;  iii.  1-10,  16-21 ; 
iv.  (omitting  16,  22  and  last  clause  of  v.  18) ;  v.  vi. 
(omitting  lib,  16,  17,  18c)  vii.-viii.  1-22  (down  to 
'king');  x.  17-24;  xii.  1-11,  12  (from  'and  ye  said ')  ; 
XV.,  xvii.  1-11,  14-58 ;  xviii.  1-4,  12-19 ;  xix.  (mostly), 
xxi.  2-10  ;  xxiii.  14  (from  *  and  Saul  ')-18  ;  xxvi. ;  2  Sam. 
i.  6-10,  13-16  ;  vii. 

Of  these  two  sources  or  groups  of  sources,  B  appears 
to  be,  or  to  include,  the  more  recent ;  for  the  attitude  to 
the  monarchy  found  in  A  is  most  naturally  explained  if 
the  writer  belonged  to  the  earlier  days  of  that  institution 
before  disillusionment  had  become  complete  and  widely 


^m.]  SAMUEL  73 

prevalent,  and  similarly  the  attitude  in  B  is  that  to 
be  expected  after  disillusionment  had  set  in.  Again  the 
story  of  Goliath  in  B  appears  to  postulate  a  longer  or 
shorter  interval  between  A  and  B,  during  which  a 
celebrated  feat  of  David's  reign,  attributed  in  the  first 
instance,  as  it  still  is  in  A,  to  one  of  David's  servants, 
became  transformed  into  an  act  of  personal  prowess  on 
the  part  of  David  himself  in  his  youth  while  Saul  was  still 
reigning. 

If  we  pass  from  the  question  of  relative  to  that  of  absolute 
dates,  it  may  be  observed  that  A  was  certainly  written 
after  l)avid's  death  if  it  included  either  1  Sam.  xxvii.  6  or 
1  Kings  i.,  ii.  (in  the  main),  and  it  probably  included  both, 
and  almost  certainly  even  if  it  included  neither  :  the  narra- 
tives in  2  Sam.  ix.-xx.  refer  to  a  period  in  David's  life  when 
his  children  were  already  mature  and  capable  of  acting 
against  him  pohtically,  and  the  Hsts  in  xxiii.  8-39  seem  to 
be  Hsts  of  a  reign  and  period  that  is  closed.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  is  a  freshness  and  vividness  about  the  stories, 
and  an  absence  of  indication  of  prolonged  development  of 
tradition  that  favour  a  date  not  very  remote  from  the 
events  described.  With  this  accords  the  attitude  to  the 
monarchy  and  the  style.  The  source,  or  sources,  denoted 
by  A  may  well  be  as  early  as,  or  even  considerably  earUer 
than,  c.  800  B.C. 

B,  later  than  A,  may  well  be  as  late  as,  or  later  than, 
Hosea  (c.  760-740  B.C.),  whose  judgment  of  the  monarchy 
(Hos.  xiii.  11)  is  similar.  To  the  same  date  certain  affini- 
ties of  style  that  have  been  detected  between  B  and  the 
Pentateuchal  source  E  would  also  point;  see  Driver, 
Introduction,  p.  177. 

The  question  whether  A  and  B  respectively  represent 
a  single  source,  or  more  than  one,  hangs  together  with  the 
question  of  the  nature  and  purpose  of  those  sources.  Were 
they  biographies  of  Samuel,  Saul,  David  ?  In  this  case 
each  biography  in  each  series  might  be  the  work  of  a  dif- 
ferent hand.  Or  were  they  narratives  of  the  origins  of  the 
monarchy  ?    If  they  were,  unity  of  source  in  either  case 


74     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 

is  sufficiently  probable.  The  discussion  of  the  question 
cannot  be  carried  further  here. 

It  remains  to  consider  briefly  certain  other  points  in  the 
history  of  the  books  of  Samuel ;  and  as  a  preliminary  to  this, 
one  or  two  remarkable  features  of  Samuel  in  its  present 
form.  Both  at  the  end  of  what  is  now  the  first  and  at  the 
end  of  the  second  book,  the  order  is  strange.  1  Sam. 
xxviii.  3-25  is  obviously  misplaced ;  for  (1)  it  relates  the 
eve  of  the  battle  of  Gilboa  (vers.  4,  19),  and  is  thus  the 
introduction  not  to  chs.  xxix.,  xxx.,  but  to  ch.  xxxi. ;  (2) 
in  xxviii.  4  Saul  and  the  Philistines  are  encamped  at 
Gilboa  and  Shunem  respectively,  i.e.,  at  some  four  miles 
distance  from  one  another,  in  readiness  for  battle,  whereas 
in  xxix.  I  the  PhiHstines  have  proceeded  no  further  than 
Aphek,  which  lay  in  the  plain  of  Sharon,  a  good  day's 
march  at  least  from  Gilboa,  and  not  till  xxix.  II  do  they 
reach  Jezreel  just  under  Gilboa. 

More  curious  still  is  the  position  of  2  Sam.  xxi.-xxiv., 
and  also  the  arrangement  of  the  sections  within  these 
chapters.    The  sections  are  as  follows  : — 

(a)  xxi.   1-14,   Yahweh  punishes  David's   land  with 

famine,  but  listens  to  David's  prayer. 
(6)  xxi.  15-22,  details  of  the  wars  with  the  Philistines. 

(c)  xxii.,  a  Psalm  (=Ps.  xviii.). 

(d)  xxiii.  1-8,  another  poem  :  *  David's  last  words.' 
(c)  xxiii.  8-39,  heroes  in  the  war  with  the  Philistines, 

and  other  soldiers  of  David. 
(/)  xxi  v.,  Yahweh  again  punishes  David's  land,  this 
time  with  pestilence,  which,  however,  in  answer 
to  David's  prayer,  he  stays.     Note  xxiv.  1  con- 
tinues xxi.  14b  ;  cp.  also  xxiv.  25. 

Now  it  is  obvious  that  of  these  sections  a  and  /,  b  and  c, 
c  and  d  respectively  are  most  intimately  connected  with 
one  another,  and  so  much  so  that  it  looks  as  if  6  and  e  must 
first  have  been  inserted  between  a  and  /,  and  then  c  and  d 
between  b  and  c.  Again,  the  section  as  a  whole  looks  Uke 
an  appendix  to  the  account  of  David's  reign  in  2  Sam.  i.-xz., 


vm.]  SAMUEL  76 

or  an  interpolation,  if  2  Sam.  i.-xz.  and  1  Kings  i.,  ii. 
be  treated  as  continuous ;  for  whereas  2  Sam.  xx. 
and  the  immediately  preceding  chapters  deal  with  an 
advanced  period  in  David's  reign  and  life,  and  naturally 
lead  up  to  the  account  of  his  last  days  in  1  Kings  i.  ii., 
2  Sam.  xxi.  1-14  clearly,  and  2  Sam.  xxiv.,  possibly,  belong 
to  a  much  earlier  period  of  the  king's  reign ;  so  also  do  the 
wars  with  the  Philistines. 

Other  instances  of  misplacement  have  also  been  surmised, 
and  it  has  been  suggested  by  Mr.  S.  A.  Cook  that  even 
2  Sam.  ix.-xx.  is  neither  homogeneous  nor  in  order ;  but 
that  Absalom's  revolt  belonged  to  a  relatively  early,  the 
Ammonite  war  to  a  later,  period  of  the  reign,  and  that  we 
should  approximate  more  nearly  to  the  meaning  of  the 
sources  of  2  Sam.  by  re-arranging  thus,  ii.-iv.  (Ishbaal), 
ix.  Meribaal ;  xiii.-xx.,  Absalom's  revolt ;  x.-xii.  Ammonite 
war ;  and  by  referring  y.-viii.  and  2;xi.-xxiv.  to  a  separate 
source. 


76     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  Lea 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  EARLIER  HISTORICAL  BOOKS:   (3)  1  AND  2  KINGS 

Kings,  like  Samuel,  was  originally  a  single  undivided  work. 
The  existing  division  into  two  books,  which  is  as  ancient  as 
the  Greek  version,  unhke  the  similar  division  of  Samuel, 
corresponds  to  no  marked  turn  in  the  history,  but  divides 
the  narrative  in  the  middle  of  the  unimportant  reign  of 
Ahaziah  of  Israel. 

Kings  must  have  been  written  during  or  after  the  Exile, 
for  it  brings  the  history  down  to  the  fall  of  the  monarchy 
and  the  Exile  (586  B.C.),  and  in  2  Kings  xxv.  27  ff.  the 
release  of  Jehoiachin  in  561  B.C.  and  his  subsequent  Ufe 
are  summarily  referred  to.  Moreover,  1  Kings  iv.  24  was 
written  by  one  to  whom  Gaza  is  beyond  ^  the  River 
(Euphrates),  i.e.  by  one  who,  probably  having  settled  as  a 
captive  in  Babylon  in  597  or  586  B.C.,  was  at  the  time  hving 
east  of  the  Euphrates.  Other  pre-suppositions  of  Exile  may 
be  found  in  2  Kings  xvii.  19  f. ;  xxiii.  26  f.,  if  not  also  in 
certain  passages  that  are  given  in  the  form  of  prophecies ; 
see  1  Kings  ix.  7-9 ;  2  Kings  xx.  17  f. ;  xxi.  10-15 ;  xxii. 
15-20. 

Since  no  return  from  Exile  is  recorded,  it  is  possible  that 
the  writer,  who  recorded  the  release  of  Jehoiachin,  wrote 
before  the  release  of  the  people  as  a  whole  in  538  B.C. 

Kings  is  a  history  of  the  Hebrew  Monarchy  from  the 
death  of  David  and  the  accession  of  Solomon  (c.  970  B.C.)  to 
its  extinction  in  586.  Incorporated  at  places  into  this 
history  of  the  monarchy  are  narratives  concerning  the 

»  3«©  R.V.  marg.  :  the  rendering  of  A.V.  and  R.V.  text  is  quite 
Illegitimate. 


IX.]  KINGS  77 

prophets  ;  and,  even  apart  from  these  special  narratives, 
though  the  subject  of  the  book  is  the  monarchy,  its 
standpoint  is  prophetic,  or,  to  speak  more  specifically, 
Deuteronomic. 

The  work  falls  naturally  into  three  divisions  : — 

(1)  1  Kings  i.  1  (ii.  12)-xi.  Solomon  (c.  970-930). 

(2)  1  Kings  xii.-2  Kings  xvii.    The  Divided  Monarchy 

(c.  930-722). 

(3)  2  Kings  xviii.-xxv.    The  Jewish  Monarchy  (722- 

686). 

In  the  first  and  third  section  a  simple  chronological 
method  was  possible,  and  to  this  extent  was  adopted  that 
the  reigns  of  the  successive  Jewish  kings  are  dealt  with 
successively  and  separately.  In  the  second  section  the 
difficulty  that  always  presents  itself  when  separate  histories 
are  treated  together  had  to  be  met ;  and  the  writer's 
method  is  as  follows :  starting  with  Jeroboam,  the  first 
king  of  the  northern  kingdom  after  the  Disruption,  he 
carries  the  narrative  of  this  reign  to  a  close;  and,  then 
turning  to  Judah,  continues  the  history  of  Judah 
through  the  reigns  of  Rehoboam,  Abijam  and  Asa,  i.e. 
down  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of  the  last  king  who  was  to 
any  extent  contemporary  with  Jeroboam.  The  commence- 
ment of  Rehoboam's  reign  coincided  with  that  of  Jeroboam ; 
with  Abijam  (i.  xv.  1)  the  writer  begins,  and  with  (xv.  9) 
Asa  continues,  what  was  to  be  his  regular  method  of  dating: 
the  accession  of  each  king  is  dated  by  reference  to  the  year 
of  the  king  then  reigning  in  the  sister  kingdom.  Having 
related  the  history  of  all  Jewish  kings  in  any  degree  con- 
temporary with  Jeroboam,  the  writer  now  describes  the 
reigns  of  all  kings  of  Israel  in  any  degree  contemporary 
with  Asa,  king  of  Judah  :  these  are  Nadab  (xv.  25),  Baasha 
(xv.  33),  Elah  (xvi.  f.),  Zimri  (xvi.  15),  Omri  (xvi.  21), 
Ahab  (xvi.  2a). 

The  effect  of  the  method  just  described  is  that  Jehosha- 
phat  is  introduced  as  the  reigning  king  of  Judah  into  a 
narrative  of  the  northern  kingdom  (1  Kings  xxii.  2)  before 


78     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

the  commencement  of  his  reign  has  been  formally  recorded 
(xxii.  41)  in  the  narrative  of  the  southern  kingdom. 

The  simultaneous  deaths  of  Joram  king  of  Israel  and 
Ahaziah  king  of  Judah  at  the  hands  of  Jehu,  who  succeeded 
to  the  throne  of  Israel  (2  Kings  ix.),  called  for  some  modifica- 
tion of  the  method ;  for  Jehu  could  not  be  said  to  have  begun 
to  reign  in  year  a;  of  a  reigning  king  of  Judah,  nor  Athahah 
(2  Kings  xi.  1)  in  year  a;  of  a  reigning  king  of  Israel. 
The  writer  meets  the  case  by  inserting  the  reigns  of  Jehoram 
and  Ahaziah  of  Judah  (2  Kings  viii.  26-29)  before}  and  not, 
as  his  method  in  normal  circumstances  would  have  re- 
quired, after  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Joram  of  Israel. 

Occasionally  a  narrative  falls  outside  the  regnal  scheme  : 
thus  the  account  of  EUjah's  death  (2  Kings  ii.)  is  inserted 
between  the  records  of  Ahaziah's  death  and  the  accession 
of  his  successor  (2  Kings  i.  17  f.,  iii.  i.  f.)-  So  also  the  ac- 
count of  Ehsha's  death  (2  Kings  xiii.  14-21)  falls  between  the 
death  of  Joash  (2  Kings  xiii.  13)  and  the  accession  of 
Jeroboam  (2  Kings  xiv.  23). 

The  author  of  a  history  extending  over  several  centuries 
may  for  the  last  few  years  of  it  write  out  of  his  own  personal 
knowledge  of  events,  but  for  the  most  part  he  must  be 
dependent  on  sources.  Of  what  sources  did  the  writer  of 
Kings  avail  himself,  and  how  did  he  use  them  ?  From  our 
examination  of  other  Hebrew  historical  works  we  should  be 
prepared  to  expect  that  he  has  incorporated,  with  httle  or 
no  modification,  extracts  from  the  sources  at  his  command  ; 
and  the  marked  difference  in  style  between  different  parts 
of  Kings  confirms  this  expectation.  Just  as  little  as  the 
Chronicler  does  the  author  of  Kings  freely  compose  his 
narrative  in  its  entirety ;  he  composes  a  framework  into 
which  he  (or,  as  some  hold,  a  later  editor)  inserts,  with  or 
without  modifications,  extracts  from  various  sources. 
The  framework  consists  in  part  of  facts,  such  as  a  king's 
age  at  accession,  length  of  reign  and  so  forth,  which  the 
author  obtained  from  statements  in  his  sources  or  by 
inference  from  such  statements,  and  in  part  of  his  reflections 

1  Yet  Bee  also  2  Kings  iz.  29. 


IX.]  KINGS  79 

on  the  facts,  suoh  as  his  judgments  on  the  character  of  the 
several  kings. 

It  will  be  convenient  to  examine  first  the  framework,  and 
then  to  consider  the  sources  named,  or  used  unnamed,  by 
its  author  or  by  later  scribes  who  have  brought  the  work 
into  its  present  form. 

The  exact  extent  of  the  framework  or  free  composition 
of  the  author  of  Kings  may  be  open  to  some  doubt,  but  the 
framework  proper,  the  scheme  which  holds  the  whole  book 
together,  is  clear  :  it  consists  of  certain  similar  sections  or 
formulae  that  occur  regularly  in  connection  with  the  several 
reigns,  and  constitute  the  minimum  notice  taken  of  any 
reign ;  the  amount  of  additional  matter  introduced  into 
this  framework  differs  greatly  for  different  reigns. 

These  recurring  formulae  occiu:  with  some  variations  of 
form  and  completeness,  which  are  admirably  and  exhaus- 
tively tabulated  by  Dr.  Bumey  in  his  Notes  ,  ,  ,  on  Kings, 
pp.  X  ff.;  but  normally  the  contents  of  the  formulae  are  as 
follows  : — 

1.  At  the  beginning  of  a  reign  of  a  king  of  Judah  the 
formula  gives : — 

(a)  A  synchronism  of  the  date  of  accession  with  the 

regnal  year  of  the  reigning  king  of  Israel  (neces- 
sarily omitted  after  the  fall  of  the  northern  king- 
dom, which  took  place  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah) ; 

(b)  King's  age  at  accession  ; 

(c)  Length  of  his  reign  ; 

(d)  The  name  of  the  king's  mother ; 

(e)  A  judgment  on  the  king's  character. 

2.  At  the  beginning  of  a  reign  of  a  king  of  Israel  the 
formula  gives : — 

(a)  A  synchronism  with  the  reigning  king  of  Judah ; 

(b)  The  length  of  the  king's  reign  ; 

(c)  A  judgment,  in  most  cases  in  two  parts — (a)  in 

general  terms,  (y8)  by  comparison  with  the  sinful 
Jeroboam. 


80     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAIVIENT  [ch. 

3.  At  the  end  of  a  reign,  whether  of  a  king  of  Judah  qi 
Israel,  the  full  formula  gives  :-^ 

(o)  The  source  in  which  further  information  may  be 

obtained ; 
(h)  Notice  of  the  king's  death  and  burial ; 
(c)  The  name  of  his  successor. 

Solomon's  reign  is  not  introduced  by  a  formula ;  instead, 
judgment  after  the  manner  of  formula  1  is  passed  on  him 
in  1  Kings  iii.  3,  xi.  4-6,  and  the  statement  of  the  length  of 
his  reign  is  inserted  (1  Kjngs  xi.  42)  in  the  middle  of  the 
concluding  formula  (1  Kings  xi.  41-43) :  op.  1  Kings  ii.  10  f. 
of  David. 

Typical  examples  may  be  found  of  formula  1  in  1  Kings 
xxii.  41-43  ;  2  Kings  xv.  1-4 ;  of  formula  2  in  1  Kings  xv. 
33  f. ;  of  formula  3  in  1  Kings  xvi.  5  f. ;  2.Kings  xv.  6,  7. 
Formula  3  is  entirely  lacking  at  the  end  of  the  reigns  of 
Athaliah,  Jehoahaz,  Jehoiachin,  and  Zedekiah  of  Judah, 
and  of  Jehoram  and  Hoshea  of  Israel,  and  the  formula  is 
more  often  incomplete  at  the  end  of  a  king  of  Israel's  reign 
than  at  the  end  of  a  king  of  Judah's. 

If  the  free  composition  of  the  author  of  Kings  were  hmited 
to  these  formulae,  it  would  be  simplest  to  suppose  that  he 
Uved  after  the  fall  of  the  Jewish  kingdom  in  586  B.C.,  for 
the  reign  of  the  last  king  is,  Uke  the  rest,  introduced  by 
formula  1  (2  Kings  xxiv.  18-20),  which,  since  it  gives  the 
length  of  the  reign,  implies  that  the  author  outlived  it. 
But  there  is  an  alternative  possibiUty :  the  author  of  the 
main  part  of  the  framework  may  have  hvcd  before  the 
Exile,  and  his  work  may  have  been  extended  by  a  supple- 
menter  who  adopted  the  formula?  used  in  the  main  body  of 
the  work  for  the  additional  reigns  which  he  recorded.  In 
view  of  this  possibility  it  is  necessary  to  consider  how 
nearly  the  date  of  the  main  body  of  the  framework  can  be 
deteripined  independently  of  this  consideration ;  and  the 
conclusion  suggested  is  that  the  main  body  of  the  frame- 
work was  written  after  the  date  of  Josiah's  reformation  in 
621  B.C.,  for  the  judgments  passed  on  the  several  kings  of 


Et]  KINGS  81 

Israel  and  Judah  are  judgments  determined  by  the  centralis- 
ation of  worship  in  Jerusalem  which  formed  the  leading 
objective  of  the  reformation ;  stated  otherwise,  the 
standpoint  of  the  framework  is  throughout,  as  is  also  the 
phraseology,  Deuteronomic.  Consequently  all  the  kings 
of  Israel  except  Shallum,  on  whom  no  formal  judgment 
is  passed,  are  judged  to  have  done  evil,  because  they 
failed  to  reverse  the  action  of  Jeroboam  who,  by  cutting 
off  the  northern  kingdom  from  the  south,  cut  it  off  also 
from  access  to  the  sanctuary  in  Jerusalem. 

There  are  other  parts  of  Kings  besides  the  formulae  that 
are  more  or  less  clearly  Deuteronomic  in  tone  and  temper  as 
well  as  in  style;  and  some  of  these,  such  as  Solomon's 
prayer,  which  is  markedly  Deuteronomic  (1  Kings  viii. 
15-53),  and  others  (1  Kings  xi.  36 ;  2  Kings  viii.  19 ; 
1  Kings  ix.  3),  seem  to  imply  that  the  kingdom  of  Judah, 
or  the  Davidic  monarchy,  or  the  Temple,  still  existed,  and 
consequently  that  the  passages  in  question  were  written 
before  586  B.C.  Certain  passages,  too,  by  referring  to 
conditions  which,  strictly  speaking,  ceased  at  the  Exile, 
as  continuing  '  unto  this  day,'  seem  to  imply  that  they  were 
written  before  those  conditions  ceased  to  exist,  i.e.  before 
the  Exile  ;  see  1  Kings  viii.  8,  ix.  21,  xii.  19  ;  2  Kings  viii. 
22,  xvi.  6 ;  but  if  2  Kings  viii.  22  imphes  a  date  prior  to 
586,  1  Kings  xii.  19  should  imply  a  date  prior  to  722. 
In  several  cases  either  the  inference  as  to  pre-exilic  date 
is  precarious,  or  the  connection  of  the  passage  with  the 
framework  uncertain. 

Into  the  minuter  analysis  of  the  parts  of  Kings  which 
may  be  regarded  as  Deuteronomic  and  not  earUer  than 
621  B.C.,  it  is  impossible  to  enter  here.  But  it  may  be  con- 
venient to  give  the  passages  assigned  by  Stade  either 
(a)  to  the  author  of  the  framework  whom  he  calls  the 
Epitomist,  or  (6)  to  other  writers  of  the  Deuteronomic 
school ;  these  passages  are  (a)  1  Kings  iii.  lb,  3,  4a ;  viii. 
11-13  ;  ix.  llb-13,  16,  17a,  20,  26-28  ;  x.  28  f.  ;  xi.  la,  3, 
7  f.,  9a,  41-43  ;  xii.  1  f.,  25-28a,  29-31  ;  xiii.  33b,  34  ;  xiv. 
19-31  (mainly)  ;  xv.  (except  v.  3)  ;  xvi.  5  f.,  8-11,  14-34  ; 

V 


82     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [CH. 

xxii.  39-46,  51-54  ;  2  Kings  i.  (17),  18  ;  iii.  1-3  ;  viii.  16-18, 
20-29  ;  X.  28  f.,  32,  34-36  ;  xii.  1-4,  18-22  ;  xiii.  1-3,  7-11, 
22,  25a ;  xiv.  1-5,  15  f.,  18-21,  23,  24,  26-29  ;  xv.  1-xvi. 
3 ;  xvi.  5  f.,  19  £. ;  xvii.  1-6,  21-23 ;  xviii.  1  f.,  5-7,  9-11, 
13,  16 ;  XX.  20,  21 ;  xxi.  1,  2a,  16-20,  23-26 ;  xxii.  1  f. ; 
xxiii.  24  f.,  28-37 ;  xxiv.  5  f. ;  (6)  ii.  1-12,  27 ;  iii.  la, 
2,  15;  V.  16-19;  vi.  11-14;  vii.  47-50;  viii.  9,  14-24, 
26,  28-32,  35-66;  ix.  1-9;  xi.  lb,  2,  4,  29-31,  33-38; 
xii.  15 ;  xiv.  21  (in  part)  ;  xv.  4 ;  xvi.  33b ;  2  Kings 
viii.  19;  x.  30  f . ;  xiii.  4-6,  12  f.,  23,  25b;  xiv.  6; 
xvi.  3b,  4 ;  xvii.  7-14,  15b-18,  34b-40 ;  xxi.  (1-15),  21  f. ; 
xxiii.  3b,  26  f. ;  xxiv.  2-4,  7-10,  12,  16-19 ;  xxv.  1-15, 
18-28,  30. 

To  some,  though  probably  not  to  ail,  of  the  written  sources 
on  which  he  drew  in  compiUng  his  work,  the  author  refers 
by  name.  These  named  sources  may  be  considered  first : 
they  are  three  :  (1)  the  hook  of  the  acts  (dibri)  of  Solomon, 
which  is  cited  in  1  Kings  xi.  41  for  the  reign  of  Solomon ; 
(2)  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  (dibrt  hayydmim)  of  the  kings  of 
Israel,  which  is  cited,  first  in  1  Kings  xiv.  19,  and  seventeen 
times  in  all,  for  the  reigns  of  all  kings  of  the  northern 
kingdom  except  Jehoram  and  Hoshea  ;  (3)  the  book  of  the 
Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  which  is  cited  first  in 
1  Kings  xiv.  29,  and  fifteen  times  in  all,  for  the  reigns  of  all 
the  kings  of  Judah  except  Ahaziah,  Athahah,  Jehoahaz, 
Jehoiachin,  and  Zedekiah. 

The  kind  of  information  Hkely  to  be  found  in  what  the 
Hebrews  called  '  a  book  of  chronicles,'  or,  more  hterally 
rendered,  *  a  book  of  the  affairs  of  the  days,'  might  be 
inferred  from  1  Chron.  xxvii.  24  ;  Neh.  xii.  23,  which  men- 
tion chronicles  containing  statistical  and  genealogical 
material :  the  particular  kind  of  material  actually  con- 
tained in  the  sources  named  by  the  author  of  Kings  can  be 
inferred  from  the  brief  descriptions  given  by  him :  these 
sources  recorded  illustrations  of  Solomon's  wisdom  (1  Kings 
xi.  41),  or  of  a  king's  might  (1  Kings  xxii.  45  and  other 
passages)  ;  they  gave  details  of  a  king's  conquests  (2  Kings 
xiv.  28),  of  the  water-works  he  constructed  (2  Kings  xx.  20), 


IX.]  KINGS  83 

of  the  cities  he  built  (1  Kings  xxii.  39  f.),  of  the  costly  palace 
he  may  have  erected  (1  Kings  xxii.  39),  or  of  the  conspiracy 
by  which  he  may  have  won  his  way  to  the  throne  (1  Kings 
xvi.  20  ;  2  Kings  xv.  16) ;  and,  once,  one  of  these  sources  is 
referred  to  for  a  record  of  the  sin  which  the  king  sinned 
(2  Kings  xxi.  17). 

Many  details  of  the  kind  just  indicated  may  well  have 
been  recorded  at  the  time  in  royal  records,  such  as  that  of 
Mesha,  king  of  Moab,  inscribed  on  what  is  known  as  the 
Moabite  stone,  and  it  is  commonly  held  that  the  com*t 
official,  whose  duty  it  was  to  keep  such  records,  is  mentioned 
under  the  name  of  the  mazTcir  (E.  V.  recorder)  in  2  Sam. 
viii.  16,  XX.  24 ;  1  Kings  iv.  3 ;  2  Kings  xviii.  18-37  ; 
2  Chron.  xxxiv.  8.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  author  of  Kings 
does  not  refer  to  these  primary  and  contemporary  records, 
but  to  comprehensive  works  based  upon  them  :  except  in 
the  case  of  Solomon  he  refers  not  to  the  chronicle  or  record 
of  a  particular  king,  but  to  works  containing,  in  the  one  case, 
records  of  (all)  the  kings  of  Israel,  and,  in  the  other,  records 
of  (all)  the  kings  of  Judah.  As  to  the  date  at  which  these 
two  comprehensive  works  were  composed,  much  the  same 
question  arises  as  in  the  case  of  Kings  itself :  it  would  be 
simplest  to  infer  that  the  book  of  the  chronicles  of  the  kings 
of  Israel  was  compiled  after  the  fall  of  the  northern 
kingdom  in  722,  and  the  book  of  the  chronicles  of  the  kings 
of  Judah  after  586  ;  but  an  alternative  theory  is  possible,' 
viz.,  that  such  comprehensive  works  were  compiled  in  each 
kingdom  after  several  kings  had  already  reigned,  and  that 
they  were  subsequently  added  to. 

Babylonian  literature  contains  a  work  similar  in  character 
to  that  just  inferred.  The  Babylonian  chronicle  is  a  record 
of  pohtical  events  in  the  reigns  of  the  kings  of  Babylon  from 
745-668  B.C.  A  few  Unes  from  the  opening  of  this  work 
may  suffice  to  illustrate  the  similarity  of  the  Babylonian 
work,  which  exists  in  a  copy  made  in  the  fifth  century  B.C., 
and  the  Hebrew  chronicles,  the  nature  of  which  is  inferred 
from  the  allusion  to  them  in  Kings.  The  Babylonian 
chronicle  opens  thus : 


84     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

*  In  the  third  year  of  Nabonassar,  king  of  Babylon,  Tiglath- 
pileser  took  his  seat  on  the  throne  in  Assyria.  In  the  same 
year  he  marched  against  Akkad  and  plundered  the  cities  of 
Rapiku  and  Khamranu.  The  gods  of  the  city  of  Shapazza  he 
carried  away. 

'During  the  reign  of  Nabonassar,  Borsippa  separated  itself 
from  Babylon.  The  battle  of  Nabonassar  against  Borsippa  is 
not  recorded. 

*  Li  the  fifth  year  of  Nabonassar,  Ummanigash  took  his  seat 
on  the  throne  in  Elam. 

*In  the  fourteenth  year  Nabonassar  fell  ill  and  died  in 
his  palace.  Nabonassar  ruled  fourteen  years  over  Babylon. 
Nadinu,  his  son,  took  his  seat  on  the  throne  in  Babylon.  In 
the  second  year  Nadinu  was  killed  in  a  revolt.  Nadinu  reigned 
two  years  in  Babylon.  Shumukin,  a  governor  of  the  province, 
a  rebel,  took  his  seat  on  the  throne.'  ^ 

Chronicles  of  the  kings  would  probably  be  confined  to  the 
record  of  political  events  ;  it  is  altogether  unlikely  that  they 
would  also  contain  long  narratives  in  which  prophets,  not 
kings,  play  the  chief  part ;  yet  Kings  contains  such  narra- 
tives.2  When  we  add  to  this  negative  consideration  the  fact 
that  these  nanatives  are  distinguished  by  peculiarities  of 
style,'*  we  may  safely  infer  that  the  author  of  Kings  neither 
derived  them  from  the  chronicles  which  he  so  frequently 
mentions,  nor  composed  them  himself :  they  are  derived 
from  other  written  works  compiled,  perhaps,  by  prophets, 
and,  as  the  diction  is  commonly  supposed  to  indicate,  in 
the  northern  kingdom,  before  its  fall  in  722  B.C.  But  just 
as  the  author  of  Chronicles  certainly  modifies  his  extracts 
from  Samuel  and  Kings  (pp.  8-11,  89-91),  so  the  compiler, 
who  incorporated  these  stories,  almost  certainly  also  modi- 
fied them  more  or  less. 

A  third  type  of  source  has  not  improbably  contributed  to 

»  From  Cuneiform  Parallels  to  the  Old  Tentament  (1912).  by  R.  W.  Rogers, 
who  f(ives  a  translation  of  the  Chronicle  in  full  (pp.  208-219) 

*  The  narratives  in  question  are  probably  not  all  derivwl  from  one  source : 
one  group  may  be  found  in  1  Kings  xvii.-xix. ;  xxi. ;  2  Kings  i,  2-17a;  ii.  ;  iv.  • 
V.  ;  vi.  1-7  ;  viii.  1-15  ;  ix.  1-10,  28  ;  xiii.  14-29  ;  another  iu  1  Kings  xx.  ;  xxii. 
1-38 :  2  Kings  ii.  3,  4-27  ;  vi.  8-33  ;  vii.  (xiv.  8-14) ;  see  Burney,  np.  210-215. 

»  C.  F.  Burney,  Notes  .  .  .  Kings,  p.  208  f.  8.  R.  Driver,  Introduction 
to  the  Literature  qf  tlie  Old  Testament,  p.  188  n. 


a.]  KINGS  86 

the  present  form  of  Kings  :  the  full  details  concerning  the 
Temple  given  not  only  in  1  Kings  vi.,  vii.,  but  also  in 
2  Kings  xi.  4  ff. ;  xii.  4-16 ;  xvi.  10-18 ;  xxii.  3  fif.,  cannot 
with  any  probability  be  traced  back  to  the  same  source 
as  the  prophetic  narratives,  nor  with  much  probability  to 
the  royal  chronicles :  we  may  more  safely  infer  the  use 
of  Temple  records. 

It  is  altogether  improbable  that  a  writer  who  consulted 
and  cited  from  sources  throughout  the  whole  of  the  rest 
of  his  work  wrote  the  account  of  David's  last  days  (1  Kings 
i.  f .)  out  of  his  own  head  ;  yet  none  of  the  sources  already 
enumerated  seem  to  lie  at  the  basis  of  that  narrative,  but 
rather  sources  which  were  used  in  the  compilation  of 
Samuel  (see  above  p.  73). 

Kings  has  reached  us  in  two  recensions,  the  one  that  of 
the  Hebrew  text  and  the  English  versions,  the  other  that 
of  the  LXX.  It  is  probable  that  neither  recension  retains 
the  exact  form  which  the  book  had  assumed  about  550  B.C., 
but  that  each  in  some  measure  reflects  modifications, 
whether  of  arrangement,  addition,  or  omission,  which  the 
book  underwent  after  the  Exile.  The  order  of  the  last  four 
chapters  of  1  Kings  (xix.,  xxi.,  xx.,  xxii.),  and  the  shorter 
form  of  1  Kings  viii.  1-11  in  the  LXX.  are  examples  of 
variations  in  which  it  is  probable  that  the  Greek  recension 
represents  an  earlier  form  of  the  book  than  the  Hebrew 
recension.  Some  of  the  matter  absent  from  the  Greek  but 
present  in  the  Hebrew  text  bears  clear  signs  of  the  influence 
of  P  (p.  26),  and  on  this  ground  these  additions  to  the  text 
may  be  assigned  to  a  date  at  least  as  late  as  the  fifth 
century  B.C.  Examples  of  these  additions  are  (1)  *  and 
all  the  heads  of  the  tribes,  the  princes  of  the  fathers  (houses) 
of  the  children  of  Israel,  unto  king  Solomon  in  Jerusalem,' 
in  viii.  1 ;  (2)  *  and  the  priests  and  Levites  brought  them 
up '  (R.  V.  *  even  these  did  the  priests,'  etc.),  in  viii.  4 ; 
(3)  '  the  congregation  of,'  in  viii.  5. 

The  diagram  given  below  represents  the  main  stages  in 
the  history  of  the  Book  of  Kings  ;  the  broken  line  on  the 
right  represents  an  alternative  theory  according  to  which 


86     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

the  stories  of  the  prophets  did  not  become  associated  with 
the  annalistic  and  didactic  (Deuteronomic)  parts  of  Kings 
till  after  the  Exile. 


Temple  Pecords 


ffoya/  Records 
(from  Solomon  c.  9  70  ax. 
onwards) 


Prophetic  Narratives 

(partly  at  feast  betb/v 

722  B.C.) 


/lets  of        Chronicles  of     Chronicles . 
Solomon,        Kings  of  Judah,     of  Kings  of/ 
Israel.  ^ 


Framework,  c.  600 ec. 

I 

Supplement,  c  550  B.C. 


Later  Additions 
(  Oeuteronom/cj 


/idditt'ons 
(PriesllyJ 


Hebrehf  Recension 


Creels  Recension 


CHRONICLES  ^  87 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  LATER  HISTORICAL  BOOKS:    (1)   CHRONICLES 

The  first  and  second  books  of  Chronicles  are  merely  two 
sections  of  one  work,  though  the  division,  Hke  the  corre- 
sponding division  of  Kings,  is  already  found  in  the  Greek 
version. 

But  even  the  two  books  of  Chronicles  do  not  represent 
the  entire  extent  of  the  original  work  ;  for  of  this  work  the 
books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  almost  certainly  formed  the 
last  sections  (p.  97)  ;  but,  since  this  conclusion  rests  on 
the  converging  evidence  of  several  features  common  to 
these  books  it  will  be  convenient  to  consider  Chronicles 
and  Ezra-Nehemiah  in  the  main  separately,  not  basing  argu- 
ments as  to  the  date  and  character  of  Chronicles  exclusively 
on  evidence  drawn  from  Ezra-Nehemiah,  nor  vice  versa. 

The  narrative  of  Chronicles  is  carried  down  to  the  first 
year  of  Cyrus  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  22),  i.e.  537  B.C.,  and  it 
necessarily  follows  that  the  work  is  post-exilic.  But  it  is 
possible  to  go  further  and  to  say  that  the  book  was  com- 
piled somewhat  late  in  the  post-exilic  period — not  earlier  than 
c.  400  B.C.,  and  more  probably  about  300,  or  even  perhaps 
200  B.C.  Two  pieces  of  evidence  in  Chronicles  itself  may 
be  noted  here  :  (1)  in  1  Chron.  iii.  19-24,  the  genealogy  of 
David  is  carried  down  to  the  sixth  generation,  or,  if  we 
prefer  the  text  of  the  Greek  version,  to  the  eleventh  genera- 
tion, after  Zerubbabel  (fl.  520  B.C.)  ;  if  we  allow  twenty 
years  only  to  a  generation,  and  follow  the  Hebrew  text, 
this  would  carry  us  down  to  c.  400  as  the  earliest  date  at 
which  Chronicles  can  have  been  composed  ;  if  we  follow 
the  Greek  text  and  allow  thirty  years  to  th-e  generation 


88     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

we  obtain  c.  190  B.C.  as  the  earliest  date ;  (2)  in  1  Chron. 
xxix.  7  the  anachronism  by  which  a  sum  of  money  is  given 
in  terms  of  the  Persian  coin  '  daric  *  named  after  Darius  i. 
(522-485  B.C.),  shows  that  that  coin  had  long  been  intro- 
duced, and  that  the  writer  Uved  at  earUest  far  on  in  the 
Persian  period  (538-332  B.C.).  Even  if  Ezra-Nehemiah 
were  not  part  of  the  same  work,  the  occurrence  in  Chronicles 
and  in  Ezra-Nehemiah  of  similar  linguistic  pecuharities 
would  point  to  the  books  belonging  to  much  the  same 
period,  and  Ezra-Nehemiah  must  certainly  be  dated  later 
than  400  B.C. 

Chronicles    divides   naturally   into   three    sections,    as 
follows ! — 

(1)  1  Chron.  i.-ix. :   a  thin  thread   of   history  from 

Adam  to  Saul,  given  in  the  form  of  genealogies  : 
viz.  i.  1-33,  Adam  to  Isaac ;  24-68,  Isaac's 
descendants  through  Esau ;  ii.-ix.  Isaac's  de- 
scendants through  Israel. 

(2)  1    Chron.    x.-2  Chron.    ix.    (in    all    twenty-nine 

chapters) ;  a  history  of  the  united  monarchy 
over  all  Israel  from  the  death  of  Saul  to  the 
death  of  Solomon. 
Saul  is  scarcely  more  than  allusively  referred  to  : 
David  is  the  true  leader  even  in  Saul's  lifetime 
(1  Chron.  xi.  2=2  Sam.  v.  2). 

(3)  2  Chron.  x.-xxxvi. :  a  history  of  Judah  oTiZy,  from 

the  disruption  of  the  monarchy  to  the  captivity 
(686  B.C.),  and  the  Restoration  (637  B.C.). 

In  Ezra-Nehemiah  the  history  is  carried  down  from  637- 
432  B.C. 

In  the  first  division  of  his  work  the  Chronicler  is  dependent 
in  part  on  the  Pentateuch  in  (substantially)  its  complete 
form  ;  he  quotes  from,  or  his  information  is  based  on, 
psussages  belonging  to  both  JE  and  P ;  what  lay  before 
him  was  the  combined  work  JEDP  (cp.  p.  50).  So,  for 
example,  1  Chron.  i.  6-7=Gen.  x.  2-4  (P) ;  i.  8-16=Gen 
X.  6-7  (P)+Gen.  x.  8,  13-18a  (J) ;  i.  17-23=Gen.  x.  22,  23 


x.]  CHRONICLES  89 

(P)-f  Gen.  X.  24-29  (J).  Other  parts  of  1  Chron.  i.  are 
condensations  of  parts  of  Genesis  which  so  much  pre- 
suppose familiarity  with  Genesis  that  they  would  be  un- 
intelligible without  a  knowledge  of  the  earher  work :  the 
lists  of  names  in  vers.  1-4  and  24-27,  for  example,  rest  on 
Gen.  V.  (P),  xi.  10-26  (P). 

In  other  parts  of  1  Chron.  i.-ix.  the  author  is  dependent 
on  Joshua,  Samuel  or  Kings ;  for  example,  1  Chron.  iii. 
1-9  is  drawn  from  2  Sam.  iii.  2-5 ;  v.  14-16 :  in  yet  other  parts 
the  information  is  not  derived  from  any  known  source. 

The  scope  and  purpose  of  Chronicles  can  be  best  discerned 
by  observing  what  parts  of  Samuel  and  Kings  the  author 
fails  to  reproduce,  and  what  additions  he  makes,  whether 
of  his  own  or  drawn  from  other  sources.  It  must  suffice 
to  refer  here  to  the  larger  omissions  and  additions,  and  also 
to  a  few  of  the  smaller  omissions  or  modifications,  by  way 
of  illustrating  the  writer's  dominant  interests. 

The  most  extensive  omission  made  in  citing  from  the 
earUer  sources  is  the  entire  history  of  the  northern  king- 
dom :  this  carries  with  it  the  omission  of  the  great  pro- 
phetic narratives  about  EHjah  and  Elisha  which  play  so 
conspicuous  a  part  in  Kings.  The  only  allusion  to  EUjah 
is  in  2  Chron.  xxi.  12,  which  is  not  derived  from  Kings ; 
and  Elisha  is  not  mentioned  at  all. 

But  from  the  history  even  of  the  united  monarchy  as 
told  in  Samuel,  there  are  also  extensive  omissions.  The 
Hfe  and  reign  of  Saul  are  neglected ;  only  the  story  of  his 
death  (1  Chron.  x.  1-12=1  Sam.  xxxi.)  is  reproduced,  and 
this  in  order  to  lead  up  to  the  moral  pecuHar  to  the  Chroni- 
cler (1  Chron.  x.  13  f.).  Then  2  Sam.  i.-iv.,  with  its  record 
of  David's  affection  for  the  great  though  fallen,  but  to  the 
Chronicler  the  merely  wicked,  king,  and  of  David's  long 
wars  with  the  house  of  Saul  are  entirely  passed  over ;  so 
also  is  2  Sam.  v.  4  f.,  recording  the  length  of  David's  reign 
over  Judah  only  before  he  became  king  of  all  Israel.  The 
effect  of  these  omissions  is  striking,  and  was  probably 
intended  :  had  we  only  1  Chron.  x.,  xi.  1-9,  and  no  other 
narrative  in  Samuel,  we  should  suppose  that  David,  crowned 


90     CRmCAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

at  Hebron  immediately  after  Saul's  death,  moved  at  once 
to  Jerusalem,  becoming  immediately  and  without  opposition 
king  of  all  Israel.  In  the  same  way  the  abortive  attempts 
to  interfere  with  Solomon's  succession,  recorded  in  1  Kings 
i.-ii.  11,  are  omitted  in  Chronicles. 

The  story  of  David's  wars  with  the  Ammonites  (1  Sam. 
X.  1-19;  xi.  1,  26, ;  xii.  30  f.)  is  reproduced  in  1  Chron.  xix.  1- 
XX.  3  ;  but  the  whole  of  the  remainder  of  the  long  section 
in  Samuel  (2  Sam.  ix.-xx)  in  which  this  narrative  stands, 
but  which  is  in  the  main  a  record  of  the  court  and  family 
life  of  David,  the  king's  failings,  and  the  dissensions  in  his 
family,  is  omitted. 

Of  the  longer  additions  made  in  Chronicles  to  the  narra- 
tive of  Samuel  and  Kings,  we  may  note  :  (1)  1  Chron.  xv. 
1-24;  xvi.  4-42  (of  which  xvi.  8-36  is  from  Ps.  cv.,  xcvi.,  and 
cvi.)  :  this  is  an  amplification  of  the  story  of  the  re- 
moval of  the  ark  to  Jerusalem  (2  Sam.  vi.) ;  according  to  the 
additions  in  Chronicles,  David  concludes  that  the  disaster 
attending  the  first  attempt  to  bring  up  the  ark  to  Jerusalem 
WEis  due  to  the  absence  of  Levites,  and  provides  Levites 
who  on  this  occasion  bear  the  ark,  thus  carrying  out  the 
law  of  Moses  (1  Chron.  xv.  12-15). 

(2)  A  second  and  yet  longer  addition  is  1  Chron.  xxii.  2- 
xxix.  30,  of  which  1  Chron.  xxix.  23a,  27  (=1  Kings  ii. 
12a  11)  is  alone  drawn  from  known  sources.  This  section  is 
almost  exclusively  devoted  to  the  numbers  and  duties  of  the 
Levites,  the  priests ,  and  other  persons  attached  to  the  Temple 
(chs.  xxiii.-xxvi.),  and  David's  instructions  to  Solomon  and 
the  people  touching  the  Temple  (chs.  xxii.,  xxviii.,  xxix.). 

(3)  Another  long  addition  (2  Chron.  xvii.  lb-19,  xix. 
1-xx.  30)  occurs  in  the  record  of  Jehoshaphat's  reign, 
and  here,  too,  Levites  are  conspicuous ;  for  example,  the 
Levites  sing  and  the  Jewish  army  conquers. 

In  a  large  number  of  other  but  smaller  additions,  more- 
over, Levites  are  introduced ;  or,  again,  Levites  take  the 
place  of  other  actors  in  the  early  story.  See  e.g.  1  Chron. 
xiii.  1-6  (=2  Sam.  vi.  1) ;  2  Chron.  xiii.  2-22 ;  viii.  12-16 
(an  expansion  of  1  Kings  ix.  25). 


X.]  CHRONICLES  91 

While  not  merely  the  stories  of  Elijah  and  Elisha,  which 
necessarily  went  with  the  history  of  the  northern  kingdom, 
but  other  stories  of  the  prophets  in  Samuel  or  Kings  are 
omitted  (2  Sam.  xii.-Nathan),  or  abbreviated  (2  Kings 
xviii.-xx.-Isaiah),  many  longer  or  shorter  stories  of 
prophets  otherwise  unknown  are  added ;  and  in  these 
the  prosperity  that  awaits  good  conduct  in  a  king,  and 
the  adversity  that  awaits  bad  conduct,  are  mainly  dwelt 
on  :  see  e.g.  2  Chron.  xii.  6-8  ;  xv.  1-15  ;  xvi.  7-10.  Other 
moralising  additions  also  occur  with  frequency :  see  e.g. 
2  Chron.  xii.  2b  ;  xxi.  10b  ;  xxii.  7-9. 

A  short  but  characteristic  and  significant  addition 
occurs  in  2  Chron.  i.  3b-6a  :  the  story  in  1  Kings  iii.  4-13 
of  Solomon's  sacrifice  in  Gibeon  presented  a  problem  to 
the  Chronicler ;  how  could  a  king  legitimately  sacrifice 
at  Gibeon,  if  David  had  already  removed  to  Jerusalem 
not  only  the  ark,  but  the  tent  which  contained  it,  and  the 
one  legitimate  altar  before  the  tent,  which  Bezalel  had  built 
in  the  wilderness  (Ex.  xxxi.  1-9 ;  xxxviii.  1-7  P)  ?  He  meets 
the  problem  by  the  theory  that,  though  the  ark  had  gone, 
tent  and  altar  had  remained  at  Gibeon :  on  this  altar 
accordingly,  and  not  in  *  the  great  high  place '  (1  Kings 
iii.  4),  was  the  sacrifice  offered.  Other  illustrations  of 
small  modifications  may  be  seen  in  the  parallel  passages 
cited  on  pp.  8-11. 

Chronicles,  then,  is  a  history  of  the  Jews  and  of  Levi, 
with  a  genealogical  introduction  relating  Judah  and 
Levi  to  their  place  in  Israel,  and  Israel  to  the  world  at 
large,  and  tracing  also  the  development  of  the  tribe  of 
Levi  into  its  different  sections — of  priests,  Levites,  singers. 
Nearly  half  the  genealogical  introduction,  and  substantially 
the  whole  of  the  remainder  of  the  work  are  devoted  to 
Judah  and  Levi.  But  not  only  is  the  writer's  interest 
exclusively  fixed  on  the  Jews  together  with  the  Levites ; 
in  the  history  of  the  Jews  it  chiefly  centres  on  the  Temple 
and  the  sacred  classes.  The  work,  from  the  conclusion  of 
the  genealogies  onwards,  is  based  on  Sanauel  and  Kings  ; 
these    sources   are   largely   reproduced,    but   also   freely 


92     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch 

treated  :  outgrown  theological  ideas  are  effaced,  as  we  see 
when  Satan  replaces  Yahweh  in  1  Chron.  xxi.  1  (=2  Sam. 
xxiv.  1) ;  the  history  is  persistently  moralised,  even  at 
the  expense  of  much  loss  of  the  vividness  of  the  earher 
sources  ;  for  example,  a  veil  is  drawn  over  David's  pohtical 
struggles,  his  moral  faiUngs,  the  intrigues  that  disturbed 
the  close  of  his  reign  and  interfered  with  the  undisputed 
succession  of  Solomon  ;  David  in  Chronicles  is  the  typically 
pious  king,  who  wastes  no  words  of  praise  or  generous 
feelings  on  sinful  Saul,  becomes  king  without  difficulty 
over  all  Israel,  reigns  to  the  end  undisturbed  by  family 
or  internal  disturbances,  and  passes  on  the  succession 
undisputed  to  Solomon.  He  wages  some  wars,  indeed, 
but  mainly  devotes  himself  to  religious  and  ecclesiastical 
matters,  in  which  he  acts  scrupulously  according  to  the 
commands  of  the  late  priestly  legislation  (P).  And  the 
way  in  which  the  character  of  David  is  recreated  is 
but  the  most  extreme  example  of  the  writer's  method 
elsewhere. 

What  we  have  in  Chronicles,  then,  is  a  restatement 
of  the  earlier  history  of  Judah  as  conceived  by  one  who 
held  that  the  late  priestly  legislation  (P)  was  of  Mosaic 
origin,  and  consequently  already  in  force  in  the  time  of 
David,  and  necessarily,  therefore,  carried  out  by  him  and 
all  pious  kings.  The  same  writer  as  he  passed  on  (in 
Ezra-Neh.)  into  post-exiUo  times,  when  the  priestly  legis- 
lation actually  came  into  force,  naturally  found  records 
that  told  a  story  more  inteUigible  to  him  £U9  it  stood,  and 
called  for  less  correction  and  ampUfication. 

As  a  document,  then,  that  preserves  the  spirit,  and  the 
moral,  religious  and  ecclesiastical  ideals  of  the  Jews  about 
300-200  B.C.,  Chronicles  is  invaluable,  and  most  so,  because 
then  its  meaning  is  most  clearly  expressed,  when  we  can 
watch  the  author  modifying  those  earlier  sources  which 
we  still  possess.  But  as  an  independent  source  for  pre- 
exilic  history  Chronicles  is  of  far  more  limited  value,  and 
needs  to  be  used  with  the  greatest  caution,  though 
additional  statements  {e.g,  2  Chron.  xxvi.  9  f.)f  which  do 


X.1  CHRONICLES  98 

not  appear  in  any  way  to  expness  the  dominant  interests 
of  the  writer,  or  to  be  overmuch  colom*ed  with  the  con- 
ditions of  his  own  age,  may  rest  on  lost  documents,  and 
preserve  correct  information. 

What,  then,  were  the  sources  of  Chronicles  ?  Chronicles 
consists  in  large  part,  as  we  have  seen,  of  extracts  from  the 
books  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  and  is  based  to  a  less  extent 
on  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua.  Does  Chronicles  also 
contain  extracts  from  other  sources  now  lost  ?  If  so,  to 
what  extent,  and  what  were  the  character  of  these 
sources  ? 

An  examination  shows  that  the  author  or  compiler 
refers  either  to  a  large  number  of  sources,  or  to  a  smaller 
number  of  sources  cited  under  a  large  variety  of  titles, 
in  which  fuller  accounts  of  what  he  is  recording  may  be 
found.    These  titles  or  forms  of  reference  are  as  follows  : — 

1.  The  book  of  the  Kings  of  (preposition)  Judah  and 

Israel :  n.  xvi.  II. 

2.  The  book  of  the  Kings  of  (genitive)  Judah  and 

Israel :  n.  xxv.  26 ;  xxviii.  26.    See  also  No.  15 
below. 

3.  The  book  of  the  Kings  of  Israel  and  Judah  :  n.  xxvii 

7 ;  XXXV.  27;  xxxvi.  8 ;  cp.  i.  ix.  I  (LXX.). 

4.  The  Midrash  of  the  book  of  the  Kings  :  n.  xxiv.  27. 
6.  The  Midrash  of  the  prophet  Iddo  :  n.  xiii.  22. 

6.  The  history  (Hebrew,  luords  or  acts)  of  the  kings  of 

Israel :  n.  xxxiii.  18. 
6b.  The  book  of  the  Kings  of  Israel :  see  No.  11. ;  cp, 
I.,  ix.  1  (MT). 

7.  The  history  (Hebrew  toords)  of  Samuel  the  seer  :  i 

xxix.  29. 

8.  The  history  of  Nathan  the  prophet ;  i.  xxix.  29  ;  n. 

ix.  29. 

9.  The  history  of  Gad  the  vision-seer  :  i.  xxix.  29. 
10.  The  history  of  Shemaiah  the  prophet  and  of  Iddo 

the  vision-seer  for  reckoning  by  genealogies : 
n.  xii.  15. 


94     CRITICAIj  introduction  to  old  testament  [oh. 

11.  The  history  of  Jehu,  the  son  of  Hanani,  which  it 

inserted  in  the  book  of  the  Kings  of  Israel: 
n.  XX.  34. 

12.  The  history  of  .  .  .  (the  reading  of  the  definition 

of  the  history  is  uncertain)  :  n.  xxxiii.  19. 

13.  The  prophecy  of  Ahijah  the  Shilonite  :  ii.  ix.  29. 

14.  The  visions  of  Iddo  (the  name  is  corrupt  in  Hebrew), 

the  vision-seer  concerning  Jeroboam,  the  son  of 
Nebat :  n.  ix.  29. 

15.  The  vision  of  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz,  the  prophet, 

in  the  book  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  and  Israel : 
n.  xxxii.  32. 

References  of  a  different  type  from  the  foregoing  are  : — 

16.  '  The  rest  of  the  history  of  Uzziah,  first  and  last, 

Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz,  wrote  * :  n.  xxvi.  22. 

17.  The  (book  of  the)  chronicles  of  King  David ':    i. 

xxvii.  24. 

18.  The  later  history  of  David :   i.  xxiii.  27 :  but  this 

rendering  is  doubtful,  and  the  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  ambiguous. 

19.  The  lamentations  :  n.  xxxv.  25  (see  p.  165). 

20.  I.  V.  17  seems  to  imply  familiarity  with  a  genea- 

logical register  of  the  eighth  century. 

The  references  to  the  source  or  sources  numbered  1-15 
are  introduced  by  a  formula  which  appears  with  several 
slight  variations  :  e.g.  *  And  the  rest  of  the  acts  (Hebrew, 
"  words  ")  of  Amaziah,  the  first  and  the  last,  are  they  not 
written  in  .  .  .'  ?  Occasionally  the  formula  is,  '  And  behold 
the  acts,'  etc.  In  either  case,  but  especially  in  the  first,  the 
reference  is  in  form  a  reference  to  a  source  in  which  further 
details  may  be  found,  rather  than  to  the  sources  whence 
the  Chronicler  has  drawn  verbatim^  or  in  substance,  his 
own  narrative.  But  there  is  Uttle  doubt  that  the  refer- 
ence covers  both  facts  :  that  the  Chronicler  has  drawn  on 
the  source  in  question,  and  that  further  information  may 
be  found  there.    But  what  are  theae  sources  ? 


X.]  CHRONICLES  96 

It  can  scarcely  be  questioned  that  numbers  1-3  are 
merely  various  forms  of  the  title  of  one  and  the  same  book  ; 
nor  can  there  be  much  doubt  that  number  6  is  yet  another 
name  for  the  same  work.  The  vision  of  Isaiah  (number  15) 
may  once  have  been  a  distinct  work,  but  it  is  definitely  cited 
as  forming  part  of  number  2. 

Nor  again  can  there  be  any  doubt  that  the  books  referred 
to  in  numbers  1-3,  6,  11,  15,  Uke  the  canonical  books  of 
Kings,  contained  the  history  of  the  kings  of  Israel  as 
well  as  of  Judah  ;  for  otherwise  the  reference  to  Israel  in 
the  titles,  although  the  work  is  referred  to  for  information 
about  kings  of  Judah  exclusively y  would  be  inexpUcable. 

If  now  we  consider  (1)  that  the  Chronicler  cites  for  each 
reign  subsequent  to  Solomon  only  a  single  source,  and 
(2)  that  the  vision  of  Isaiah  (number  15)  and  the  history 
[ehu  (number  11)  are  clearly  cited  as  parts  of  the  book 
le  kings  of  Judah  and  Israel,  and  (3)  that  for  the  reigns 
>avid  and  Solomon,  for  each  of  which  three  special 
references  are  given,  the  general  work  is  not  cited,  and  if 
(4)  we  compare  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  19  (R.  V.  margin)  with 
ver.  18,  we  may  hold  it  probable  that  numbers  7-14  are, 
Hke  number  15,  merely  specific  references  to  sections  of  the 
same  comprehensive  work — the  book  of  the  kings  of 
Israel  and  Judah  (numbers  1-3,  6). 

Were  even  the  Midrash  of  the  book  of  Kings  (number  4) 
and  the  Midrash  of  Iddo  (number  5)  distinct  works  ? 
It  is,  at  least,  possible  that  they  were  not,  for  why  just  for 
the  reigns  of  Joash  and  Abijah  should  the  Chronicler  refer 
to  the  Midrash,  and  for  all  other  reigns  to  the  work  on 
which  the  Midrash  was  based  ? 

But  the  term  Midrash  is  significant  whether  the  Midrash  of 
the  book  of  the  kings  of  Israel  was  one  of  the  main  sources, 
or  only  an  occasional  source,  of  Chronicles.  Midrash,  from 
the  root  drshy  to  search  out,  investigate,  is  a  term  famihar 
in  the  later,  post-bibhcal  Jewish  Hterature  for  the  large 
inferential  development  of  Scripture  themes,  or  histories, 
by  which  lacunae  were  filled  up  or  difficulties  removed  by 
searching  out,  or  exploring  to  its  depths,  the  words  ci 


96     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ca 

Scripture.  No  better  example  of  one  tjrpe  of  Midrash  could 
be  cited  than  the  passage  akeady  discussed  (p.  91),  in  which 
it  is  inferred  that  the  one  legitimate  altar  remained  at  Gibeon 
till  Solomon's  days.  In  other  cases  Midrash  may  weave  an 
entirely  fresh  story  round  a  name,  as  when  in  the  apocryphal 
addition  to  the  book  of  Daniel  the  story  of  Susannah 
suppUes  what  was  missing  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  a  reason 
for  the  name  Daniel,  i.e.  '  God  is  my  judge.' 

A  Midrash  on  the  books  of  Kings  would,  then,  probably 
be  a  work  based  on  the  canonical  book  of  Kings  and 
amplified  by  exegetical  inferences  and  edifying  details  or 
stories  told  to  enhance  the  glory  or  the  moral  significance 
of  some  of  the  persons  or  events  in  the  original  work. 

On  the  whole,  it  seems  most  probable  that  Chronicles 
rests  mainly  on  two  sets  of  sources :  (a)  the  canonical 
books  from  Genesis  to  Kings ;  (6)  a  single  work  coving 
the  history  of  Israel  and  Judah.  This  second  source  i  Jnot 
identical  with  Samuel  and  Kings  for  it  is  appealed  to 
(e.g,  in  1  ix.  1 ;  2  xxvii.  7;  xxxiii.  18)  for  facts  not  now  at  Jpast 
to  be  found  in  those  books  ;  nor  is  it  the  separate  and  dis- 
tinct sources  in  which  the  histories  of  Israel  and  Judah 
were  related  separately,  and  which  had  been  used  by, the 
author  of  the  canonical  Kings. 

The  question  has  arisen  whether  it  is  necessary  to  assume 
the  direct  use  by  the  Chronicler  of  (a),  i.e.  the  canonical 
books  at  all,  and  whether  the  extracts  from  those  books  did 
not  come  to  him  through  (6).  This  question  cannot  be 
pursued  here,  but  it  may  be  said  that  in  that  casfe  most  of 
what  has  been  said  of  the  author  of  Chronicles  is  then 
apphcable  to  the  author  of  this  source,  and  that  relatively 
little  beyond  compilation  is  then  to  be  attributed  to  the 
final  editor.  An  important  point,  however,  to  bear  in  mind 
is  that  all  parts  of  Chronicles  not  derived  from  the  canonical 
books  share  the  same  strongly  marked  and  peculiar  late 
style. 


XLj  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH  97 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  LATER  HISTORICAL  BOOKS! 
(2)   EZRA   AND   NEHEMIAH 

Ezra  and  Nehemiah  are  in  reality  not  two  distinct  books, 
but  sections  of  one  and  the  same  book.  In  Hebrew  MSS. 
and  in  Hebrew  references  to  the  Canon  they  form  one  work 
entitled,  or  ascribed  to,  Ezra.  In  the  Greek  Bible  they  also 
form  one  work  entitled  2  Esdras,  i.e.,  the  second  book  of 
Ezra ;  and  I  Esdras,  or  the  first  book  of  Ezra,  is  (in  the 
main)  a  different  recension  of  parts  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
(see  p.  106).  In  the  Vulgate,  2  Esdras  of  the  Greek,  i.e. 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  of  the  English,  Bible  is  divided  into 
two  parts  corresponding  to  the  division  in  the  EngKsh 
Bible  into  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  but  under  the  titles  of 
1  Esdras  and  2  Esdras,  while  1  Esdras  of  the  Greek  Bible 
and  of  the  Enghsh  Apocrypha  becomes  in  the  Vulgate 
3  Esdras.  4  Esdras  of  the  Latin  MSS.,  which  forms  part 
of  the  Enghsh  Apocrypha  under  the  name  of  2  Esdras,  is 
an  apocaljrptic  work  having  no  connection  beyond  the 
name  with  any  of  the  other  books  entitled  Ezra  or  Esdras. 
Further;  it  is,  as  already  stated  (p.  87),  practically  certain, 
and  it  is  generally  admitted,  that  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
which  are  the  direct  continuation  of  Chronicles,  originally 
formed  part  of  that  work.  The  closing  verses  of  Chronicles 
(2  Chron.  xxxvi.  22  f .)  are  identical  with  the  opening  verses  of 
Ezra  (i.  1-3  to  '  go  up ') ;  there  is  a  striking  similarity  in  style 
between  all  those  parts  of  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah 
which  are  not  reproduced  word  for  word  from  the  sources 
used  by  the  compiler ;  the  dominant  interest  throughout 
is  in  the  same  subjects — the  Temple  and  the  Temple- 
worship,  the  priesthood,  genealogies,  statistics;  and  the 

G 


98     CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 

date  at  which  Ezra-Nehemiah  was  written  can  be  shown 
independently  to  be  much  the  same  as  that  of  Chronicles. 

The  date  at  which  Ezra-Nehemiah  was  written  is  not 
earher,  but  need  not  be  later,  than  about  300  B.C.  The 
generation  that  succeeded  the  return  from  the  Exile  and 
lived  c.  500  B.C.,  and  the  generation  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
(c.  460-430  B.C.)  are  coupled  together  as  periods  that  are 
(long)  past  (Neh.  xii.  26).  In  Neh.  xii.  11,  22  reference  is 
made  to  Jaddua  the  great-grandson  of  Eliashib,  Nehemiah's 
contemporary  (Neh.  xiii.  28).  The  Persian  Empire,  which 
was  overthrown  by  Alexander  the  Great  in  332,  is  to  the 
author  of  these  books  already  a  thing  of  the  past :  for  so 
only  can  we  account  for  the  addition  of  the  words  *  of 
Persia  *  to  '  the  king '  in  Ezra  i.  1 ;  iii.  7;  iv.  3 ;  vii.  1  :  this 
became  natural,  if  not  necessary,  when  *  the  king '  un- 
defined would  have  meant  to  a  Jewish  reader  a  king  that 
was  not  Persian ;  but  we  have  abundant  evidence  that  it 
was  not  customary  to  use  such  a  definition  while  the 
Persian  Empire  lasted  ;  thus  Haggai  (i.  1, 15)  and  Zechariah 
(vii.  1)  call  the  ruhng  monarch  simply  *  Darius  the  king,' 
and  the  same  usage  is  foimd  in  the  sources  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  (Ezra  iv.  8,  11 ;  v.  6 ;  vi.  3),  which  in  their  turn 
look  back  to  an  independent  kingdom  of  Babylon  as  a  thing 
of  the  past  and  consequently  speak  of  Nebuchadnezzar  as 

*  king  of  Babylon  '  (Ezra  v.  12).  So  again  in  the  business 
documents  on  papyrus  discovered  at  Assouan,  and  written 
in  the  fifth  century  B.C.,  the  date  is  always  given  in  the 
form,  *  year  ...  of  Xerxes  (or  Artaxerxes,  or  Darius)  the 
king  * ;  the  words  *  of  Persia  *  are  never  added.  And  in  the 
Elephantine  papyrus  (Sachau  Pap.  1),  written  in  408/7,  B.C., 
we  read  of  '  Darius  the  king ' ;  so  in  fines  13,  14,  which  read, 

*  And  already  in  the  days  of  the  king(s)  of  Egypt  had  our 
fathers  built  this  temple  .  .  .  and  when  Cambyses  entered 
Egypt,'  etc.,  the  native  kingdom  of  Egypt  is  a  thing  of  the 
past,  but  Cambyses  who,  though  he  fived  more  than  a 
century  before  the  letter  was  written,  belonged  to  the  still 
reigning  dynasty,  did  not  need  to  be,  and  was  not,  described 
as  '  the  Persian.' 

The  period  covered  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  is,  aocord« 


XL)  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH  00 

ing  to  the  chronological  statements  of  the  book,  from  the 
first  year  of  Cyrus  (Ezra  i.  1)  to  the  thirty-second  year 
of  Artaxerxes  (Neh.  xiii.  6).  The  thirty-second  year 
of  Artaxerxes  is  in  itself  an  ambiguous  date,  for  it  might 
refer  to  433  B.C.,  the  thirty-second  year  of  Artaxerxes  I. 
(Longimanus),  or  to  372  B.C.,  the  thirty-second  year  of 
Artaxerxes  n.  (Mnemon) ;  but  the  Artaxerxes  of  Neh. 
xiii.  6,  since  he  was  a  contemporary  of  Nehemiah,  must 
also  have  been  the  contemporary  of  Sanballat  (ID^^aJD, 
Neh.  iv.  1 ;  xiii.  28-34)  ;  and  Sanballat  was  either  dead,  or 
at  least  belonged  to  the  older  generation  aHve,  in  the  year 
408/7  ;  for  in  that  year  the  Jews  of  Elephantine  addressed 
a  letter  '  to  Delaiah  and  Shelemiah,  the  sons  of  Sanballat 
(tDi>3NJD),  the  Governor  of  Samaria '  (Papyrus  Sachau,  i.  29). 
The  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  thus  contain  a  record 
of  the  history  of  just  over  one  hundred  years — 537-433  B.C., 
into  which  there  enter  occasional  allusions  to  later  persons 
or  events  ;  but  the  record  is  not  a  sustained  and  continuous 
narrative  ;  there  are  long  gaps  in  the  history,  and  at  least 
one  curious  misplacement.  Dates  are  given  in  these  books 
by  the  years  of  the  Persian  kings,  the  corresponding  dates 
B.C.,  and  the  references  are  as  follows  : — 


1  Cyrus 

537  B.O. 

Ezra  i.  1  (op,  ▼.  13, 

2  of    the    Return 

536 

vi.  3). 
Ezra  iii.  8 

Darius,  imtil  the 

until  522 

Ezra  iv.  6. 

reign  of 
Xerxes,  beginning 

of  the  reign  of 
Artaxerxes 

485 

between  465 
and  425 

Ezra  iv.  6. 
Ezra  iv.  7-23 

2  Darius 

520 

Ezra  iv.  24, 

6  Darius 

516 

Ezra  vi.  15. 

7  Artaxerxes 

458 

Ezra    vii.    7    f.    (cp. 

20  Artaxerxes 

445 

vii.  1-9,  viii.  31). 
Neh.,  ii.  1  (so  also,  ? 

32  Artaxerxes 

433 

by  error,  in  i,  1). 
Neh.  xiii.  6. 

100  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

Thus  the  sixteen  years  from  536  to  620  B.C.  are  dis- 
missed with  a  mere  summarising  reference  (Ezra  iv.  6,  24), 
for  the  verses  that  intervene  between  Ezra  iv.  5  and  iv.  24 
refer  not  to  this  period,  but,  as  is  distinctly  stated  (iv.  6),  to 
485  B.C.  and  later.  Again,  but  for  the  ill-placed  passage 
Ezra  iv.  6-23  just  referred  to,  the  narrative  passes  over 
in  silence  the  three-quarters  of  a  century  that  he  between 
516  and  458  ;  and  even  the  period  of  the  activity  of  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah  is  described  not  in  a  continuous  narrative, 
but  with  reference  to  three  particular  years,  viz.  the  years 
458,  445  and  433  B.C. 

This  concentration  on  certain  points  of  time  and  neglect 
of  the  longer  or  shorter  intervening  periods  are  probably 
due  less  to  any  lack  of  interest  on  the  part  of  the  Chronicler 
than  to  the  meagreness  of  the  sources  of  information  at  his 
disposal.  We  can  not  of  course  be  certain  that  he  did  not 
omit  to  use  sources  which  he  might  have  used ;  but  the 
sources  which  we  can  discern  that  he  actually  did  cite  or 
make  use  of  were,  from  their  very  nature,  of  hmited  scope. 

Chief  among  these  sources  are  certain  autobiographical 
memoirs  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  Each  of  these  men 
wrote  memoirs  describing  how  he  was  led  to  leave,  Ezra 
his  home  in  Babylon  (Ezra  viii.  1),  Nehemiah  his  place 
at  the  Persian  court  in  Shushan  (Neh.  1.  1),  and  go 
up  to  join  his  fellow-Jews  in  Jerusalem,  and  also  some 
of  his  experiences  in  Jerusalem.  As  in  Chronicles  some 
extracts  are  given  from  the  books  of  Kings  and  Samuel 
almost  verbatimf  others  much  changed  and  modified,  so, 
it  would  seem,  in  Ezra-Nehemiah  the  Chronicler  cites 
considerable  sections  of  Ezra's  memoirs,  and  still  larger 
sections  of  Nehemiah's,  with  scarcely  even  a  verbal 
alteration,  whereas  at  other  times,  while  still  substantially 
dependent  on  one  or  other  of  these  sources,  he  appears  to 
be  abbreviating  and  otherwise  considerably  modifying  the 
form  of  the  memoirs  :  in  these  modified  passages  the  first 
person  proper  to  autobiography,  and  found  in  the  extracts 
cited  verbatim  from  the  memoirs,  is  replaced  by  the 
third  person  of  biography  :  cf.  e.g.  Ezra  viii.  f.  (first  person) 
with  Ezra  x.   (third  person).    Denoting  passages  cited, 


XL]  EZRA  AND  NlfHlMlAH  101 

apparently  iinaltered,  or  with  slight  and  immaterial 
variations,  from  the  memoirs  of  Ezra  by  E,  passages  based 
on,  or  cited  in  a  much  modified  form  from  the  same 
som'ce  by  e,  passages  cited  unaltered  from  the  memoirs 
of  Nehemiah  by  N,  and  modified  citations  from  the  same 
source  by  n,  we  may  represent  the  composition  of  Ezra 
vii.  1-Neh.  xiii.  31  in  the  following  table  : — 


E 

Ezra  vii.  27-ix.  16. 

e 

Ezra  vii.  1-26  (in  part  perhaps   freely  composed 

by  the  Chronicler),  x. 

N 

Neh.  i.-vii.  73  ;  xiii.  4-31. 

n 

Neh.  xi.,  xii. 

Moreover,  Neh.  viii.-x.,  in  which  Ezra  is  the  main  actor, 
but  both  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  are  referred  to  in  the  third 
person,  appears  to  be  based  on  a  well-informed  con- 
temporary document,  'possibly  the  memoirs  of  Ezra. 
Possibly  parts  of  Neh.  xi.  ff.  {e.g,  xii.  12-26 ;  xiii.  1-3)  are 
based,  not  on  the  memoirs  of  Nehemiah  but  on  other 
contemporary  documents,  or  on  compilations  such  as 
'  the  book  of  the  chronicles  '  mentioned  in  xii.  23.  Occa- 
sionally in  these  chapters,  as  also  in  Ezra  vii.,  the  Chronicler 
appears  not  only  to  abbreviate  or  modify  his  source,  but 
to  make  substantial  additions  of  his  own  :  see  Neh.  xii. 
10  f.,  22-26,  44-47,  which  refer  to  events,  or  imply  a  writer 
living,  after  the  age  of  Nehemiah ;  similar  additions  are 
perhaps  to  be  detected  in  Ezra  vii.  1-10,  Neh.  xi.  25-xii.  11. 

The  memoirs  of  Nehemiah  were  obviously  completed 
after  433  B.C.  (Neh.  xiii.  6),  but  presumably  not  long  after, 
for  the  events  seem  fresh  in  the  writer's  memory.  Both 
these  and  Ezra's  memoirs  may  well  have  been  composed 
about  430-425  B.C.  In  reading  these  memoirs,  more 
especially  where  the  compiler  has  left  them  unaltered, 
we  are  enabled  to  see  very  vividly,  through  the  eyes  of 
the  chief  actors  in  them,  events  which  proved  to  be  of 
profound  importance  for  the  whole  subsequent  history  of 
Judaism.  But  whether  the  Chronicler  places  these  events 
before  us  in  their  right  sequence  cannot  be  assumed  off- 
hand, for  in  one  instance  at  least  he  has  certainly  not 


102  CRITICAL  INTEOI'UOTON  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

arranged  his  material  in  chronological  order  (see  below, 
p.  104).  It  is,  therefore,  a  possibility  to  be  considered  that 
though  the  Chronicler  placed  his  extracts  from  Ezra's 
memoirs  before  the  extracts  from  Nehemiah's  memoirs, 
thus  giving  the  impression  that  Ezra  arrived  in  Jerusalem 
thirteen  years  before  Nehemiah  (Ezra  vii.  8,  Neh.  ii.  1),  the 
actual  facts  may  have  been,  as  some  have  argued,  that 
Ezra's  visit  was  after  Nehemiah's.  As  has  been  pointed  out 
above,  the  date  in  Ezra  vii.  8  is  ambiguous,  being  identical 
with  either  458  or  397  B.C.  Yet  unless  Neh.  viii.  9  is  false, 
Ezra  was  certainly  in  Jerusalem  tvith  Nehemiah,  and 
therefore  long  before  397  (see  above,  p.  99).  It  is,  however, 
remarkable  that  in  Nehemiah's  memoirs  as  preserved  by 
the  Chronicler  there  is  no  allusion  to  Ezra,  and  in  Ezra's 
no  reference  to  Nehemiah,  unless  Neh.  viii.-x.  is  based 
on  Ezra's  memoirs,  and  the  allusions  to  Nehemiah  in 
Neh.  viii.  9,  x.  1  are  derived  from  thence. 

In  the  relatively  short  section,  Ezra  i.-vi.,  which  deals 
with  the  far  longer  period  of  time  (536-458  B.C.),  the 
Chronicler  is  ultimately  dependent  on  certain  official 
documents,  or  on  what  at  least  purport  to  be  such  ;  these 
documents  are  incorporated,  though  perhaps  not  without 
considerable  modifications,  by  him  in  his  work.  Most 
of  these  documents  (like  that  cited  in  e — Ezra  vii.  11-26) 
are  in  Airamaic,  as  are  certain  brief  connecting  finks  of 
narrative  which  may  be  the  work  of  the  Chronicler  himself, 
for,  though  in  Aramaic,  they  exhibit  similarities  to  the 
style  of  the  Chronicler.  Chs.  i.,  iii.  2-iv.  6,  vi.  19-22 
(written  in  Hebrew)  clearly  display  the  style  of  the 
Chronicler.  As  a  first  analysis  of  this  section  then  we  may 
present  this  scheme : — 

Chronicler,    i.,  iii.  2-iv.  6,  vi.  19-22  (in  Hebrew) ;  perhaps 
also  iv.  24,  V.  If.,  16-18  (in  Aramaic). 

Documents,  (a)  in  Hebrew,  ii. ;  (6)  in  Aramaic,  iv,  6- 
23,  V.  6-17,  vi.  3-12. 

Aramaic 
narrative,  v.  3-5,  vi.  1  f.,  13-15. 


XL]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH  103 

It  should  be  observed  that  ch.  i.  also  contains  what 
purports  to  be  a  decree  of  Cyrus  (i.  2-4) ;  but,  unlike  the 
other  Persian  documents  in  iv.,  vi.,  vii.,  this  is  in  Hebrew  ; 
moreover,  the  phraseology  and  the  standpoint  are  purely 
Jewish.  At  best  this  '  decree '  of  Cyrus  is  but  a  very 
free  paraphrase  in  the  Chronicler's  own  language  of  some 
Persian  document,  which  would  have  been  written  in 
Aramaic,  the  language  used  by  the  Persian  court  in  ofiQcial 
communications  with  its  Western  Asian  subjects. 

The  remaining  documents  are  : — 

A.  In  Hebrew :  A  register  of  those  who  returned  from 

Exile :  ch.  ii. 

B.  In  Aramaic  : — 

(a)  After  an  allusion  to  correspondence  with  Xerxes 
[485-465  B.C.]  which  is  not  cited,  a  letter  is  cited 
which  was  sent  to  Artaxerxes  [465-425  B.C.]  by 
certain  opponents  of  the  Jews,  charging  the 
latter  with  treasonable  intent  in  building  the 
walls  of  Jerusalem  :  iv.  11-16. 

(6)  Reply  to  (a),  directing  that  the  rebuilding  of  the 
city  should  be  suspended  :  iv.  17-22. 

(c)  Letter  of  the  Governor  Tattenai  to  Darius  [522- 

485],  inquiring  whether  the  Jews  really  had 
permission  to  build  the  Temple  as  they  are  now 
doing :  v.  6-17. 

(d)  Reply  to  (c)  stating  that  search  had  been  made, 

and  a  decree  of  Cyrus  permitting  the  rebuilding 
of  the  Temple  found  ;  the  answer  confirms  the 
decree  of  Cyrus,  and  directs  that,  so  far  from 
hindering  the  work,  the  king's  officers  are  to 
contribute  towards  the  expenses  of  it  from  the 
king's  revenue  (Ezra  vi.  1-12). 

The  register  in  Ezra  ii.  is  taken  over  from  Neh.  vii.  6-73a, 
where  it  stands  as  part  of  Nehemiah's  memoirs ;  unless,  aa 
many  scholars  do,  we  treat  Neh.  vii.  7  (=Ezra  ii.  2)  as  an 
addition  made  by  the  Chronicler,  the  register  itself  implies 


104  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ca 

that  it  is  a  register  of  contemporaries  of  Zerubbabel,  who, 
as  we  see  from  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  was  active  in  the 
early  years  (520-518)  of  Darius  ;  such  a  Mst  is  not  unsuitably 
given  a  place  immediately  before  the  account  in  Ezra  iii. 
of  what  Zerubbabel  did  after  reaching  Jerusalem.  Ezra 
ii.  68-69a  is  a  variation  of  the  Chronicler's  on  the  register 
as  it  stands  in  Neh.  (vii.  71)  ;  moreover,  Ezra  ii.  69b  differs 
from  Neh.  vii.  72.  Not  only  the  register  but  the  opening 
of  the  following  narrative  (Neh.  vii.  73b,  viii.  la)  is  also 
transferred  to  Ezra,  with  the  result  that  the  seventh  month, 
which  in  Neh.  refers  to  the  year  445  (see  Neh.  ii.  1), 
in  Ezra  iii.  1  remains  undefined. 

The  whole  of  the  Aramaic  documents  have  been  regarded 
by  some  as  fabrications  ;  alternative  theories  are  (1)  that 
here,  as  elsewhere,  the  Chronicler  has  modified  his  sources 
(cp.  pp.  8-11,  89-91),  and  that  the  Jewish  colouring  or  the 
point  of  view  ^  which  in  places  appears  in  these  documents 
is  due  to  him ;  or  (2)  that  the  Jewish  colouring  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  the  documents  were  drafted  by  Jews,  and 
submitted  for  approval  or  modification  to  the  Persian 
authorities. 

The  documents  themselves,  if  genuine,  were  probably 
obtained  from  the  pubUc  archives  in  Jerusalem,  where  it 
would  be  natural  to  keep  copies  of  letters  sent  to,  and  the 
originals  (or  copies)  of  letters  sent  from,  the  Persian  court, 
just  as  a  copy  of  the  letter  sent  by  the  Jews  of  Elephantine, 
to  the  Persian  official  Bagoi,  and  the  letter  received  in  reply 
from  him,  were  kept  by  the  Jewish  community  in  Elephan- 
tine, and  lay  there  till  they  were  discovered  in  1907.  But 
the  arrangement  of  these  documents,  though  it  may  be,  and 
indeed  from  iv.  24  would  appear  to  be,  original,  is  neither 
chronological,  nor  logical :  it  is  not  chronological,  for  the 
correspondence  with  Artaxerxes  (465-425)  is  placed  before 
the  correspondence  with  Darius  (622-485)  ;  nor  is  it  logical, 
for  though  the  correspondence  with  Artaxerxes  refers  ex- 
clusively to  the  rebuilding  of  the  walls  or  city  of  Jerusalem, 
that  is  to  say  with  the  work  undertaken  and  carried 
>  Ob  V.  16b,  6«;« ;».  loi^. 


XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH  105 

through  by  Nehemiah,  it  is  introduced  into  a  narrative  that 
refers  exclusively  to  the  building  of  the  Temple  (iv.  1-5,  24), 
which  was  the  work  of  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua,  who  lived 
a  couple  of  generations  before  Nehemiah.  It  is  clear  that 
the  correspondence  in  iv.  7-23  took  place  before  Nehemiah*s 
visit  to  Jerusalem  in  the  twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes,  for 
he  then,  by  permission  of  the  king,  completed  the  walls ; 
it  would  be  in  place,  therefore,  before  Neh.  i.  and  probably 
(if  Ezra's  visit  is  correctly  placed  before  Nehemiah' s)  after 
Ezra  X. 

On  what  the  Chronicler  rested  for  his  narratives  in 
Ezra  i.  and  iii.  cannot  be  determined ;  it  has  been  argued 
that  these  chapters  rest  on  no  historical  reahty,  but  are 
mere  inferences  from  prophecy  ;  that  Cyrus  issued  no  decree 
authorising  the  return  of  the  Jews  or  the  rebuilding  of  the 
Temple  (Ezra  i.),  and  that  the  foundation  of  the  Temple  was 
not  laid  in  536  B.C.  (Ezra  iii.),  nor  continued  in  building 
from  536  to  520  (Ezra  v.  16) ;  but  that  all  this  is  elaborated 
on  the  basis  of  an  inference  from  Is.  xliv.  28,  etc.  The 
pohcy  ascribed  to  Cyrus  in  Ezra  i.,  however,  accords  with 
well-known  Unes  of  Persian  pohcy,  which  has  recently  been 
illustrated  afresh  by  the  evidence  of  the  Elephantine 
Papjmis  (Sachau  i.)  to  the  action  of  Cyrus'  successor 
Cambyses  at  the  time  of  his  conquest  of  Egjrpt  (525  B.C.) 
in  sparing  the  Temple  of  the  Jewish  community  settled  on 
the  Nile  at  the  southern  frontier  of  Egypt ;  moreover,  the 
statement  of  Ezra  that  Cyrus  gave  the  Jews  permission  to 
return  to  Judah  conflicts  with  no  existing  evidence.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  statement  that  the  commencement  of  the 
building  of  the  Temple  took  place  in  536  is  hard  to  reconcile 
with  the  statements  made  in  520  B.C.  by  Haggai  (i.  2-9, 
ii.  15-18  ^)  and  Zechariah  (i.  16),  and  w/zy  be  nothing  more 
than  an  inference  from  the  fact  that  Cyrus  had  permitted, 
or  enjoined,  the  building  of  the  Temple  immediately  after 
the  return. 

Even  a  brief  sketch  of  the  Uterary  history  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  would  be  incomplete  without  referen^^e  to  the 

1  In  Hag.  ii,  18  since  should  be/rovi. 


106  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

book  of  1  Esdras,  which  is  a  fragment  (it  ends  in  the  middle 
of  a  sentence)  consisting  of  certain  parts  of  Chronicles, 
Ezra,  and  Nehemiah  differently  arranged^  and  of  one  long 
section  not  found  elsewhere,  thus  : 

1  Esdras    i.=2  Chron.  xxxv.  1-xxxvi.  21. 

„        ii.  l-15=Ezra  i.  (first  year  of  Cyrus  :  637). 

„        ii.  16-25=Ezra  iv.  7-24  (Artaxerxes :  465-425). 

„       iii.  1-v.  6  not  in  Ezra-Nehemiah. 

This  section  explains  how  Zerubbabel  obtained  and 
acted  upon  permission  from  Darius  (522-485)  to 
go  up  (obviously  for  the  first  time)  in  the  second 
year  of  Darius,  i.e.  520  B.C.,  to  Jerusalem  and  to 
build  the  walls  of  the  city  and  the  Temple. 

1  Esdras  v.  7-70=Ezra  ii.  1-iv.  3  (Ezra,  iii.  8=536  B.C., 
iv.  6=522  B.C. ;  see  above,  p.  99). 

^  vi.-ix.  36=Ezra  (iv.  24)  v.-x.  (Ezra  vi.  16= 
616  B.C.). 

„       ix.  37-55=Neh.  vii.  73b-viii.  13a. 

It  must  suffice  to  point  out  that  the  position  given  to 
Ezra  iv.  7-24  in  1  Esdras  ii.  16-25  secures  (chronology  apart) 
a  more  logical  narrative  ;  but  the  order  of  the  narratives  is 
not  less  violently  in  conflict  with  what  is  now  known  co 
have  been  the  real  sequence  of  the  Persian  kings.  The 
premier  place  given  to  1  Esdras  in  the  early  Greek  Church, 
from  which  the  influence  of  Jerome  dislodged  it  in  the 
Western  Church,  corresponds  to  the  preference  accorded 
to  it  by  Josephus,  who  in  his  history  follows  the  order  not 
of  Ezra-Nehemiah,  but  of  1  Esdras.  But  Josephus,  pre- 
sumably because  he  was  aware  of  the  true  sequence  of  the 
Persian  kings,  substituted  Cambyses  for  the  Artaxerxes  of 
his  source  (1  Esdras  iv.  7-24),  and  thus  removed  the  most 
conspicuous  violation  of  chronological  order  in  the  story  as 
told  in  1  Esdras. 

It  is  remarkable  that  in  Ezra  iii.  7  (=1  Esdras  v.  55)  we 
find,  apparently,  an  allusion  back  to  1  Esdras  iv.  48,  and 
that  this  allusion  is  not  explained  by  anything  in  the 


XL]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH  107 

present  text  of  Ezra.  It  is  noticeable,  moreover,  that  parts 
of  the  narrative  peculiar  to  1  Esdras  betray  the  same 
interests  as  the  Chronicler  (see  1  Esdras  iv.  52-56,  63,  v.  2). 
A  theory,  elaborated  by  Prof.  Torrey,  is  therefore  worthy  of 
consideration — that  1  Esdras  iv.  47  (from  '  wrote,'  the  sub- 
ject in  Chronicles  having  been  Cyrus)  to  iv.  56,  iv.  62-v.  6 
(omitting  '  who  spake  wise  sentences  before  Darius  the 
king  of  Persia '),  once  stood  in  the  Chronicler's  work  immedi- 
ately after  Ezra  i.  11  and  immediately  before  Ezra  ii.  1. 
In  that  case  1  Esdras  iii.  1-iv.  42  (the  storj^-  of  the  three 
pages  of  Darius  who  dispute  '  what  is  the  strongest ')  is 
an  interpolation,  and  iv.  43-46,  57-61,  v.  6a,  together  with 
the  words  *  the  same  is  Zerubbabel '  in  iv.  13  and  the  sub- 
stitution of  Cyrus  in  iv.  47  and  v.  2,  are  harmonising 
modifications  of  the  interpolator. 


108  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT 


<CB. 


CHAPTER  XII 

EUTH  AND  ESTHER 

OuTSiDB  both  of  the  two  great  series  of  histories,  Joshua  to 
Kings,  and  Chronicles,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  stand  the  books 
of  Esther  and  Ruth ;  in  the  E.  V.,  indeed,  Ruth  follows 
Judges,  and  Esther  Nehemiah,  and  the  position  there 
assigned  to  Ruth  was  already  assigned  to  it  in  the  Septua- 
gint.  Esther,  on  the  other  hand,  is  not  in  the  MSS.  of  the 
Septuagint  connected  with  Chronicles,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
but  it  is  commonly  grouped,  and  appropriately  enough, 
with  Judith  and  Tobit.  In  the  Hebrew  Bible  both  books 
form  part  of  that  group  of  the  *  Writings  '  (p.  2)  that  was 
known  as  'the  five  Megilloth*  {i.e.  Rolls),  from  the  fact 
that  they  were  the  books  or  rolls  read  at  five  annual 
celebrations  ;  yet  in  some  Hebrew  MSS.  Ruth  stands  apart 
at  the  head  of  *  the  Writings,'  preceding  even  Psalms. 

Ruth 

The  familiar  story  of  Ruth,  which  is  written  with  great 
skill  and  charm,  purports  to  be  an  incident  in  the  period  of 
the  Judges  ;  the  heroine  is  a  Moabitcss,  but  by  her  marriage 
with  Boaz,  the  Jew,  she  becomes  the  great-grandmother  of 
David. 

The  book  contains  no  clue  as  to  its  authorship,  nor  any 
definite  statement  as  to  the  source  whence  its  information 
was  derived.  That  it  was  not  written  earlier  than  the 
time  of  David,  nor  within  about  a  century  of  the  events 
described  in  it,  is  necessarily  implied  by  the  conclusion  of 
the  book  (iv.  17,  18-22).  But  there  can  be  httle  doubt  that 
it  was  written  long  after  David  ;  for  it  culminates  in  him  as 


xn.]  RUTH  109 

in  one  who  had  aheady  been  long  famous  and  had  com- 
pletely eclipsed  his  many  elder  brothers.  Ruth's  child 
Obed  was  '  the  father  of  Jesse,  the  father  of  David.'  Old 
customs  that  once  prevailed  in  Israel  have  long  died  out, 
and  require  explanation  (iv.  7).  The  period  of  the  judges 
is  long  past,  and,  perhaps,  we  may  infer  from  the  opening 
words,  '  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  days  when  the  judges 
judged,  that  there  was  a  famine  in  the  land,'  that  the  writer 
shared  the  theory  of  the  author  of  the  framework  of  Judges 
that  the  judges  had  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  land  :  in 
this  case  the  book  was  scarcely  written  at  earhest  before  the 
seventh  century  (p.  63).  Whether  it  was  written  yet  later, 
and  indeed  after  the  Exile,  turns  on  two  classes  of 
evidence,  which  are  in  this  case  ambiguous — the  style, 
and  the  purpose  of  the  book. 

The  style  in  general  has  the  characteristics  of  pure  and 
early  Hebrew  narrative,  and  some  details  of  the  language 
are  elsewhere  confined  to  pre-exiUc  hterature.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  are  markedly  late  words  in  i.  13  and  iv.  7, 18,  22, 
and  some  suspicious,  if  less  conclusive,  signs  of  lateness 
elsewhere.  The  main  weight  of  the  Hnguistic  argument 
against  pre-exiHc  date  hes  against  iv.  18-22,  which  is 
commonly  regarded  as  an  addition  to  the  original  book, 
and  iv.  7  which  might  be  a  gloss,  but  also  against  i.  13. 

Was  the  purpose  of  the  story  to  justify,  by  the  illustrious 
example  of  David's  family,  the  legitimacy  of  intermarriage 
with  Moabites,  and  more  generally  with  foreigners,  as 
against  a  stricter  school  which  forbade  all  mixed  marriages  ? 
If  this  be  the  purpose  of  the  book,  and  doubtless  the 
heroine's  Moabite  and  foreign  origin  is  emphasised  (i.  22, 
ii.  2,  6,  21,  iv.  5,  10,  ii.  10),  it  was  in  all  probabihty  a 
protest  against  the  policy  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  (Ezra 
ix.  f .,  Neh.  xiii.  23-27)  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  B.C. 
Yet  it  would  be  strange  in  that  case  that  no  opponents  of 
the  marriage  were  introduced  into  the  story  and  denounced, 
and  we  should  have  to  admire  the  skill  with  which  the 
writer  conceals  his  polemical  purpose,  and  the  very  unusual 
forbearance  which  he  shows  towards  his  opponents. 


110  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

A  point  even  more  emphasised  than  Ruth's  foreign  origin 
is  the  duty  of  the  next-of-kin  to  marry  a  childless  widow, 
and  thus  maintain  the  name  of  the  widow's  former  husband. 

Whatever  the  date  and  whatever  the  purpose  of  the  book, 
we  probably  ought  to  recognise  in  it,  on  the  one  hand,  an 
ideaUsation  of  the  past,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  certain 
traditional  elements  which  may  have  been  handed  on  for 
generations  in  the  family  of  David.  The  proper  names  in 
the  story  do  not  look  Uke  a  group  invented  after  the  Exile, 
or  even  as  late  as  the  seventh  century  ;  and  yet,  earlier  than 
the  seventh  century  the  composition  of  the  book  is  scarcely 
to  be  placed. 

Esther 

In  the  spring,  on  the  14th  and  15th  days  of  Adar,  the 
last  month  of  the  Hebrew  year,  the  Jews  celebrated  in 
their  towns  and  villages  and  throughout  the  world  a  festival 
which  was  characterised  by  the  giving  of  presents  and 
banqueting.  From  the  time  of  the  Mishnah  (c.  200  a.d.) 
onwards,  and  doubtless  earlier  too,  the  book  of  Esther  was 
read  in  the  synagogues  on  the  days  of  the  festival.  The 
name  of  this  festival  was  Purim.  Purim  is  mentioned  by 
this  name  in  Josephus  {Ant  xi.,  vi.  13),  and  imder  the 
name  of  the  Day  of  Mordecai,  t^s  MapSoxaiKTJ?  rjfxfpas, 
in  2  Maco.  xv.  36.  The  reference  in  2  Mace. — a  work 
probably  written  about  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era — 
is  the  earliest  allusion  outside  the  book  of  Esther  itself  to 
Purim. 

The  book  of  Esther  was  written  to  describe  the  circum- 
stances under  which  the  Feast  of  Purim  actually  arose, 
or  was  supposed  by  the  writer  to  have  arisen,  and  incident- 
ally (iii.  7,  ix.  26)  to  explain  the  name  of  the  feast.  Briefly, 
the  circumstances  were  these.  In  the  third  year  (i.  3)  of  his 
reign  (482  B.C.),  Xerxes,  king  of  Persia,  dismisses  his  queen 
Vashti.  After  an  interval  of  four  years  (ii.  16)  he  selected 
from  his  numerous  harem  a  Jewess  named  Esther,  also 
called  Hadassah  (ii.  7),  to  be  queen  instead  of  Vashti,  and 
crowned  her  (ii.  17).    Esther,  an  orphan,  had  been  brought 


xn.]  ^t        ESTHER  111 

up  by  her  imcle  Mordecai,  who  had  been  carried  captive 
by  Nebuchadnezzar  in  597  B.C.  (ii.  6),  and  now  (a  hundred 
and  nineteen  years  later !)  held  some  position  in  the  palace 
at  Shushan.  Through  Esther  Mordecai  reveals  to  the  king  a 
plot  on  the  part  of  two  of  his  chamberlains  (ii.  21-23).  He 
receives  no  reward  ;  on  the  other  hand,  he  rouses  the  wrath 
of  Haman,  the  chief  minister,  and  in  473  B.C.  (iii.  7)  Haman 
obtains  a  royal  decree  for  the  destruction  of  Mordecai  himself 
and  all  of  his  race  throughout  the  kingdom,  on  the  ground  of 
the  diversity  of  the  Jewish  laws  from  the  Persian,  and  Jewish 
opposition  to  Persian  laws.  Haman  prepares  a  gallows 
for  Mordecai;  but  by  the  device  of  Esther  and  Mordecai,  and 
a  timely  recollection  on  the  part  of  the  king  of  Mordecai's 
still  unrewarded  loyalty,  Haman  coming  in  to  obtain  the 
king's  permission  to  hang  Mordecai  fails  of  his  purpose. 
Haman  is  disgraced  and  hung  on  his  own  gallows,  Mordecai 
is  promoted  to  his  office,  and  the  decree  against  the  Jews  is 
rescinded ;  the  Jews,  instead  of  being  destroyed  in  the 
month  of  Adar,  slaughtered  their  enemies  on  the  13th  of 
the  month  (ix.  1-17),  and  rested  and  feasted  on  the  14th 
and  15th  (ix.  17,  18).  Henceforward  the  Jews  observe  the 
14th  and  15th  of  Adar  (ix.  19-21)  with  feasting,  and  call 
the  days  Purim,  because  Haman  had  cast  *  Pur '  to  destroy 
the  Jews  and  his  intention  had  been  frustrated. 

Obviously  the  feast  of  Purim  was  already  (cp.  ix.  19) 
an  old  institution  with  the  Jews  when  the  book  of  Esther  was 
written  ;  the  author  Uved,  therefore,  long  after  the  time  of 
Xerxes  (485-465  B.C.) ;  and  of  this  we  have  even  more 
striking  proof  in  the  fact  that  a  century  contracts  to  a  decade 
or  so  in  a  past  which  had  become  vague  to  the  writer, 
for  there  is  not  the  slightest  suggestion  in  the  story  that 
Mordecai  was  particularly  old,  still  less  that  he  was  reall}^ 
one  hundred  and  twenty  years  old  at  least,  when  his  niece 
became  queen  and  he  himself  later  the  king's  chief  minister. 

Yet,  of  the  extent  of  Xerxes's  empire  (i.  If.),  of  the  char- 
acter of  Xerxes,  and  of  the  general  conditions  under  the 
Persian  empire,  the  writer  is  well-informed.  Since  he  lived 
long  after  Xerxes  he  must  have  gleaned  his  information 


112  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

about  the  extent  of  Xerxes's  empire  from  some  source 
other  than  his  own  immediate  knowledge  ;  from  the  same 
source  he  may  have  obtained  his  information  as  to  Xerxes's 
character,  and  the  general  conditions  of  Persian  hfe.  But 
the  more  specific  elements  in  the  story  are  not  all  historical : 
the  chronology  is  flagrantly  incorrect ;  no  captive  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  was  ever  chief  minister  of  Xerxes  ;  and 
Xerxes's  queen  from  the  seventh  to  the  twelfth  year  of  his 
reign  was  neither  a  Jewess  nor  Esther  byname,  but  Amestris, 
the  daughter  of  a  Persian  noble  (Herod,  vii.  114,  ix.  112). 

We  need  not  pursue  the  discrimination  between  the 
historically  accurate  and  the  historically  inaccurate 
elements  in  the  book  further  here.  Attempts  to  defend 
the  entire  accuracy  of  the  book  have  practically  ceased. 
The  critical  problem  is  now  essentially  this  :  is  the  basis  of 
the  story  itself,  as  distinct  from  its  setting,  historical  or 
mythological  ?  Were  Vashti  and  Esther,  Mordecai  and 
Haman  historical  persons,  or  were  they  figures  in  ancient 
Persian  story  or  some  non-Jewish  mythology  ? 

It  is  not  difficult  to  imagine  an  historical  kernel  for  the 
incidents  of  the  book  of  Esther.  Some  Jewess  may  have 
been  among  the  concubines  of  Xerxes,  though  Persian  law 
(Herod,  iii.  84)  would  not  have  suffered  the  king  to  make 
her  queen,  and  in  such  a  position  she  may  have  averted 
some  poUtical  disaster  from  the  Jews.  But  of  all  this 
nothing  is  known  apart  from  the  book  of  Esther :  history 
is  silent  alike  as  to  queens  or  concubines  of  Xerxes  called 
either  Vashti  or  Esther,  as  to  ministers  of  Xerxes  called 
either  Haman  or  Mordecai,  and  as  to  the  issuing  or  with- 
drawal of  any  decree  by  Xerxes  against  the  Jews. 

The  fundamental  motives  of  the  book  of  Esther  doubt- 
less correspond  closely  to  fundamental  m3rthological 
motives  :  the  passing  of  Vashti,  and  the  coming  of  Esther, 
the  passing  of  Haman  and  the  coming  of  Mordecai  who 
destroys  Haman,  celebrated  in  spring  or  the  last  month  of 
the  year,  what  is  this,  it  is  said,  but  the  passing  of 
winter  and  the  coming  of  spring  ?  And  what  are  Vashti, 
Esther,  Mordecai  and  Haman,  but  names  of  those  who 


xn.]  ESTHER  113 

played  their  part  in  the  myth  that  explained  this  con- 
stantly recurring  natural  change  ?  Yet,  of  course,  queens 
and  ministers  do  rise  and  fall  in  political  life  no  less  actually, 
though  less  regularly,  than  spring  succeeds  to  winter. 

But  further,  the  name  Mordecai,  originally,  as  the 
Greek  suggests,  pronounced  rather  Mardukai,  is  almost 
certainly  a  derivative  from  the  name  of  the  Babylonian 
god  Marduk  ;  moreover,  the  chief  feast  in  Marduk's  honour 
was  celebrated  in  the  spring,  not  indeed  Uke  Purim  in 
the  month  Adar,  but  at  the  beginning  of  the  following 
month,  Nisan,  which  also,  however,  plays  an  important  part 
in  Esther  (iii.  7).  It  has  also  been  argued  that  Esther= 
Ishtar,  the  great  Babylonian  goddess  ;  Haman=Humman, 
an  Elamite  god  ;  and  Vashti=Mashti,  an  Elamite  goddess. 
And  one  form  of  the  mythological  theory  is  that  the  story 
at  the  basis  of  the  book  of  Esther  is  a  story  of  the  conflict 
of  Babylonian  and  Elamite  deities. 

Again,  it  is  probable  that  the  festival  of  Purim  with 
its  non- Jewish  name  was  of  foreign  not  of  native  origin ; 
and  if  so,  it  is  not  improbable  that  with  the  festival  came 
the  myth  explaining  its  origin,  and  that  Jewish  thought 
transformed  this,  Uke  other  myths,  freeing  it  from  its 
polytheistic  form,  and  finally  giving  the  story  an  historical 
setting  in  the  reign  of  Xerxes. 

The  upward  Umit  of  date  for  the  book  of  Esther  is,  as 
already  suggested,  a  long  time  after  Xerxes  (485-465), 
say  c.  300.  The  downward  Umit  is  not  so  easily  fixed. 
So  far  as  language  goes,  since  Daniel  by  its  Greek  words 
betrays  its  date,  the  absence  of  any  Greek,  in  spite  of  the 
presence  of  several  Persian,  words  in  Esther  might  afford 
a  rather  precarious  argument  for  not  descending  too  far 
into  the  Greek  period.  On  the  other  hand,  a  rather 
stronger  argument  from  silence  suggests  a  date  after 
Ecclesiasticus  (c.  180  B.C.)  ;  if  Purim  was  already  cele- 
brated every  year,  and  the  book  of  Esther  had  made 
Mordecai  and  Esther  famous  as  the  heroes  of  this  annual 
festival,  would  Ben  Sirach  have  passed  them  over  in  his 
roll  of  fame  (Ecclus.  xUv.  ff .)  ? 

H 


114  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

The  reference  to  '  the  Day  of  Mordecai  *  in  2  Mace.  xv.  36 
does  not  prove  that  this  term  existed  as  early  as  the  time 
of  the  Maccabees,  but  only  that  it  existed  as  early  as  the 
time  at  which  2  Maccabees  was  written ;  on  the  other  hand, 
the  argument  sometimes  used  that  Esther  must  have  been 
written  after  the  Maccabees,  because  the  attempt  to  destroy 
the  Jews  and  its  frustration  is  a  reflection  of  the  attack 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  on  Jewish  Uberty  and  religion, 
and  its  frustration  by  the  Maccabees,  though  suggestive, 
is  inconclusive.  Some  date  in  the  second  century  is, 
perhaps,  most  probably,  some  date  between  300  B.C.  and  the 
Christian  era  certainly,  that  at  which  the  book  was  written. 

Esther  was  extensively  interpolated,  and  these  additions 
are  given  in  the  English  Apocrypha  ;  they  differ  from  the 
original  work  in  their  references  to  God,  who  is  never 
mentioned  by  name  in  the  original  work,  and  was  rarely 
even,  it  would  seem,  in  the  writer's  mind  (yet  see  iv.  14). 
Short  omissions  in  the  Greek  text  may  perhaps  be  due  to 
the  fact  that  the  Hebrew  text  also  suffered  expansion  :  a 
larger  and  earUer  interpolation  in  the  Hebrew  text  is,  io 
the  opinion  of  many,  to  be  found  in  ix.  20-z.  3. 


xm.]  JOB  115 


CHAPTER  XIII 

JOB 

The  book  of  Job  is  a  great  imaginative  work  based  on 
matter  derived  from  tradition.  It  is  to  the  tradition 
rather  than  to  the  existing  book  that  Ezekiel  alludes 
(xiv.  14,  20)  when  he  cites  Job,  along  with  Noah  and  Daniel, 
as  a  proverbially  righteous  man.  There  is  no  other  refer- 
ence to  Job  in  the  Old  Testament ;  but  Ben  Sirach  alludes 
to  Job,  though  certainly  not  to  the  book  of  Job,  when  he 
says,  *  Ezekiel  .  .  .  made  mention  of  Job  who  maintained 
all  the  ways  of  righteousness '  (Ecclus.  xlix.  9). 

Whether  the  traditional  story  of  Job  had  been  com- 
mitted to  writing  before  the  present  book  was  written 
is  uncertain ;  nor  is  it  possible  to  determine  how  much 
the  writer  derived  from  tradition,  whether  oral  or  written  ; 
it  may  have  been  comparatively  Uttle,  and  it  certainly 
did  not  include  the  long  speeches  that  occupy  the  greater 
part  of  the  book.  These  speeches  alone  are  sufficient  to 
justify  the  isolated  judgment  of  a  Jewish  Rabbi  that  the 
hero  of  the  book  of  Job  never  lived,  nor  was  created, 
except  in  and  for  the  purposes  of  poetry  or  a  parable.  The 
hero  of  the  book  of  Job,  though  not  necessarily  his  name, 
is  now  commonly  and  rightly  regarded  as  the  creation  of  a 
poet ;  whether  the  material  out  of  which  this  poet  created 
his  hero  contained  one  grain  of  historical  fact,  whether, 
for  example,  there  ever  Kved  outside  story  an  individual 
of  the  name  of  Job  in  the  patriarchal  age,  is  a  question  of 
no  importance  for  the  understanding  of  the  book. 

The  book  falls  into  five  clearly  distinguishable  parts  : — 
(1)  Chs.  i.-ii. — ^The  introduction:    here  Yahweh  draws 


116  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 

attention  to  the  unequalled  integrity  of  Job,  and  gives  the 
Satan  permission  to  test  the  disinterestedness  of  Job's 
righteousness  by  depriving  him  of  family,  possessions 
and  health,  leaving  him  only  his  bare  life. 

(2)  Chs..  iii.-xxxi. — The  speeches  of  Job  and  his  three 
friends  who  had  come  to  comfort  him :  Job  maintains 
that  his  sufferings  are  not  due  to  his  sins :  his  friends 
maintain  that  they  are. 

(3)  Chs.  xxxii.-xxxvii. — ^The  speeches  of  Elihu,  who 
maintains  that  Job  had  been  surpassingly  wicked : 
(xxxii.  1-5  a  brief  prose  introduction  to  the  section). 

(4)  Chs.  xxxviii.-xUi.  6. — The  speeches  of  Yahweh,  whose 
words  and  appearance  terrify  Job  into  repentance,  and  a 
confession  by  Job  that  he  had  spoken  about  God  unwisely 
and  ignorantly. 

(6)  Ch.  xlii.  7-17. — The  conclusion :  Yahweh  affirms 
that  Job  had  spoken  rightly  of  him,  and  that  the  friends 
had  spoken  wrongly ;  the  friends  are  directed  by  Yahweh 
that  they  can  only  avoid  his  wrath  by  obtaining  the 
intercession  of  Job.    Job  is  restored  to  prosperity. 

The  introduction  and  conclusion,  and  the  brief  introduc- 
tion (xxxii.  1-5)  to  the  third  section  of  the  book  are  written 
in  prose ;  the  rest  of  the  book  (except  the  introductory 
sentences  defining  the  speeches)  is  in  poetical  form.  In 
the  historical  books  the  poems  from  time  to  time  introduced 
into  the  prose  narrative  are  in  origin  independent  of,  and 
earlier  than,  the  narrative.  Job  is  not  history,  and  there 
is  not  the  shghtest  need  to  infer,  from  the  mere  differences 
in  form,  that  the  speeches  are  the  work  of  one  writer,  the 
introduction  and  conclusion  that  of  another.  It  would  be 
natural  enough  for  the  same  writer  to  tell  the  story  in 
simple  narrative  first,  and  to  distinguish  the  speeches  by 
poetical  form.  In  any  case,  unlike  the  poems  in  the 
historical  books,  the  speeches  of  Job  are  not  independent 
and  self-explanatory  poems ;  they  need  an  introduction, 
and  if  they  ever  existed  apart  from  the  present  introduction 
they  must  have  been  preceded  by  another  that  has 
perished. 


xnL]  JOB  117 

The  speeches  of  Job  and  his  friends  presuppose  an 
introduction ;  and  the  conclusion  not  less  clearly  pre- 
supposes speeches  in  which  Job  and  the  friends  had  spoken 
m  opposite  senses.  But  again,  it  is  not  absolutely  necessary 
that  what  originally  stood  between  introduction  and 
conclusion  was  exactly  what  now  stands  between  them. 
The  hypothesis  that  the  present  speeches  were  written  to 
replace  what  originally  stood  between  the  present  intro- 
duction and  conclusion  is  a  possible  hypothesis  ;  whether 
it  is  necessary  is  another  question  which  will  be  deter- 
mined, hke  most  other  questions  concerning  the  integrity 
of  the  book  of  Job,  not  by  the  difference  of  form,  not  by 
such  supposed  inconsistencies  in  detail  as  that  between 
sdx.  17  and  ch.  i.,  but  by  what  is  understood  to  be  the 
purpose  of  the  book. 

Two  other  sections  fall  under  more  serious  suspicion  on 
the  ground  of  style  and  character,  independently  of  their 
relation  to  the  purpose  of  the  whole.  Without  discussing 
the  rather  barren  question  to  what  extent  Job  is  a  dramatic 
poem,  we  may  safely  claim  that  it  would  be  reasonable 
for  the  same  author  to  differentiate  the  persons  of  his  poem, 
and  as  a  matter  of  fact  he  does  differentiate  the  personalities 
^Eliphaz,  Bildad,  and  Zophar  ;  and  consequently  certain 
differences  of  style  between  the  speeches  of  Elihu  and  those 
of  the  other  characters  ought  by  no  means  to  suggest 
difference  of  authorship.  Elihu's  prolixity,  for  example, 
might  be  intended  as  a  mark  of  the  wise  young  man  who 
is  conscious  of  possessing  so  much  more  wisdom  than  his' 
elders,  and  makes  up  for  lack  of  real  contribution  to  a 
discussion  by  the  abundance  and  violence  of  his  speech. 
But  there  are  neutral  differences,  differences  that  have 
nothing  to  do  with  differences  in  the  character  of  the  persons 
depicted,  but  may  well  be  the  idiosyncrasies  of  different 
writers  :  such  are  the  use  in  Elihu's  speeches  of  one  word 
for  such  common  ideas  as  '  knowledge '  and  '  youth,*  and 
another  word  elsewhere,  and  also  the  deeper  Aramaic 
colouring  of  this  section.  Again,  we  might  account  for  the 
prohxit7  of  the  speeches  without  resorting  to  the  hypothesis 


118  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

of  different  authorship ;  but  what  of  the  introduction  to 
the  section  ?  The  prose  of  xxxii.  1-6  falls  scarcely  less  far 
below  the  prose  of  the  introduction  and  the  conclusion  than 
the  speeches  of  EUhu  below  the  other  speeches  of  the  book. 

When,  in  addition  to  the  difference  of  style,  we  note  that 
there  is  no  reference  to  Elihu  in  the  introduction  or  con- 
clusion, that  every  one  else  in  the  poem  absolutely  ignores 
him,  that  he  talks  on,  so  to  speak,  in  the  void,  and  for  his 
pains  receives  from  Yahweh  no  single  word  either  of  ap- 
proval or  disapproval,  it  should  be  obvious  that  the  reasons 
for  treating  chs.  xxxii.-xxxvii.  as  an  interpolation  in  the 
original  poem  are  strong,  and  any  theory  of  the  purpose  of 
the  book  that  rests  upon  this  section  proportionately 
precarious. 

The  reasons  for  questioning  whether  the  descriptions  of 
leviathan  and  behemoth  (xl.  15-xU.  34)  are  the  work  of  the 
same  author  as  the  speech  of  Yahweh  in  chs.  xxxviii.  f. 
are  mainly  aesthetic.  Are  the  short,  vivid  descriptions  of 
the  animals  in  ch.  xxxix.,  and  the  full  and  rather  proUx 
descriptions  of  leviathan  and  behemoth,  the  work  of  the 
same  author  ? 

The  remaining  questions  of  integrity  can  best,  and  some 
of  them  must,  be  taken  in  connection  with  the  questions  of 
purpose  and  date. 

♦  Did  the  writer,  as  is  commonly  held,  propound  to  him- 
self the  question.  Why  do  the  righteous  suffer  ?  and  does 
his  book  attempt  to  answer  the  question  ?  Or  did  he 
attempt  only  the  more  limited  task  of  showuig  the  falseness 
of  the  prevalent  dogma  that  prosperity  is  a  mark  of  God's 
favour  and  proof  of  the  righteousness  of  the  prosperous, 
and  adversity  and  calamity  proof  of  God's  displeasure  and 
of  the  wickedness  of  the  sufferer  ?  The  former  theory 
certainly  seems  at  first  sight  to  provide  a  more  adequate 
theme  for  a  great  work  ;  yet  it  is  certainly  nowhere  stated 
in  set  terms  in  the  book  of  Job,  and  interpreters  have  found 
it  exceedingly  difficult  to  discover  any  real  advance  towards 
an  answer  to  the  question  either  in  the  course  of  the  debate, 
or  in  the  speeches  of  Yahweh.    For  the  popular  dogma, 


xni.]  JOB  119 

which  every  one  agrees  is  maintained  by  the  friends, 
had  aheady  gathered  round  it  certain  subsidiary  theories 
to  help  out  its  obvious  insufficiency  to  meet  the  facts  of  Ufe. 
The  wicked  might  prosper,  but  their  triumph  was  short ; 
they  died  early"  by  the  blast  of  God's  anger ;  whereas 
though  the  innocent  might  suffer,  they  never  died  an 
untimely  death ;  so  e.g,  EUphaz  in  his  first  speech  is 
prepared  to  suspect  only  a  little  sin  in  Job  which  he  may 
work  off  by  his  present  suffering,  and  be  restored  to 
prosperity.  Again,  the  popular  dogma  inherited  from  the 
old  conception  of  the  soUdarity  of  the  family  the  theory 
that  the  sins  of  an  individual  might  be  visited  on  his 
children,  and  thus  met  the  case  of  some  innocent  sufferers 
and  some  wicked  prosperous  men  ;  but  then  in  an  age  of  a 
deepening  sense  of  the  individual  this  theory  proves  value- 
less, or  if  the  data  on  which  it  rests  be  actually  facts,  then 
they  shatter  the  main  dogma  itself  :  for  then  the  wicked 
do  not  necessarily  suffer  at  all,  they  prosper  up  to  the  last 
moment  of  their  Ufe,  receive  the  respect  of  those  that 
survive  them  and  find  sweetness  even  in  the  tomb  :  once 
dead  it  is  nothing  to  them  that  their  children  suffer  (xxi. 
19-34).  Finally,  a  certain  amount  of  suffering  is  discipHn- 
ary  :  see  again  EHphaz's  first  speech  (v.  17  ff.). 

//  the  book  set  out  to  answer  the  question,  Why  do  the  N 
righteous  suffer  ?  it  must  surely  have  attempted  some 
answer  beyond  what  the  friends,  the  representatives  of  | 
tradition,  admit,  and,  for  the  most  part,  admit  at  the 
very  outset  of  the  debate.  Moreover,  if  the  original  poem 
contained  long  speeches  of  Yahweh  at  the  close,  in  them 
would  it  be  natural  to  look  for  the  new  answer  ;  but  those 
speeches  at  best  contain  an  answer  only  in  the  implication 
that  the  question  cannot  be  answered  by  man  and  is  not 
answered  by  revelation,  that  it  belongs  to  the  inscrutable 
and  unimparted  wisdom  of  God ;  these  speeches  address 
themselves  hot  to  the  question  of  the  prosperity  of  the 
wicked  and  the  sufferings  of  the  righteous,  but  to  the 
absolute  incompetence  of  man  to  fathom  the  might  or  the 
wisdom  of  Yahweh.    And  the  nearest  approach  to  the 


120  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [CH. 

particular  question  of  the  sufferings  of  Job,  with  the 
meaning  of  which  the  rest  of  the  book  is  occupied,  is  in  the 
specimens  of  the  divine  care  of  the  animals  which  illustrate 
the  grace  and  kindness  of  the  divine  wisdom,  and  were 
perhaps  intended  to  suggest  that  behind  Job's  sufferings 
lay  a  gracious  purpose  of  the  divine  wisdom. 

Some,  indeed,  have  sought  the  author's  solution  of  the 
problem  not  in  the  speeches  of  Yahweh,  but  in  those  of 
EUhu — a  precarious  theory  (p.  117),  even  if  these  speeches 
in  their  insistence  on  the  disciplinary  nature  of  suffering 
really  went  beyond  the  position  of  Eliphaz  in  substance,  as 
well  as  in  multitude  of  words.  Some  difficulties  remain 
even  if  we  conclude,  as  we  should,  that  the  book  was  not 
really  intended  to  handle  the  wide  question.  Why  do  the 
righteous  suffer?  but  was  concentrated  on  denying  thfi^ 
prevalent  dogma  that  suffering  and  adversity  are  marks 
of  sin  in  the  individual  sufferer,  and  of  the  divine  displeasure 
resting  on  him.  This  theory  of  the  purpose  of  the  book 
at  least  binds  together  the  Prologue,  the  Dialogue,  and  the 
Epilogue,  and  gives  to  the  speeches  of  Yahweh  and  Elihu 
as  much  relevance  as  they  can  justly  claim  to  possess  on 
any  other  theory.  Yahweh's  insistence  on  the  inscruta- 
bility of  the  divine  wisdom  is,  if  as  indirect,  yet  just  as  real, 
a  condemnation  of  the  prevalent  dogma  as  of  anything  that 
Job  had  said.  In  the  Prologue,  God  maintains  and  the 
Satan  challenges  the  integrity  of  Job,  with  the  result  that 
Job  the  righteous  becomes  Job  the  sufferer  ;  in  the  debate 
Job,  now  in  adversity,  maintains  and  the  friends  deny  the 
integrity  of  Job ;  in  the  Epilogue,  God  maintains  the 
integrity  of  Job  against  the  friends.  In  the  Prologue  the 
Satan  asserts  that  adversity  will  make  Job  curse  God  :  in 
the  Dialogue  the  friends  deny  the  rightness  of  Job's  words 
now  that  adversity  has  come  :  in  the  Epilogue  God  declares 
that  the  words  of  Job  in  his  adversity  have  been  right. 

But  the  speeches  of  Yahweh  raise  some  difficulties :  where- 
as in  Epilogue  and  Prologue  alike  God  defends  and  approves 
Job  unreservedly,  in  xxxviii.  2  he  charges  him  with  unwise 
speech ;  and  the  whole  point  of  the  speeches  appears  to  lie  in 


xm.]  JOB  121 

the  necessity  for  reducing  Job  to  a  sense  of  his  ignorance 
of  God's  ways,  and  his  folly  in  speaking  confidently  out  ol 
his -partial  knowledge.  It  is  generally  said  that  Job  had, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  in  the  course  of  the  debate  committed 
this  kind  of  folly ;  that  he  had  spoken  as  if  possessed  of 
omniscience,  and  arraigned  God's  government  in  a  manner 
which  nothing  short  of  omniscience  would  have  justified, 
and  which  omniscience  would  actually  have  prevented ; 
and  that  therefore  he  needed  humbling.  This  is  not  with- 
out force,  though  it  carries  with  it  this  point :  what  the 
Satan  had  been  imable  to  achieve  by  depriving  Job  of 
riches,  children,  and  health,  the  friends  by  their  persistent 
presentation  of  a  banal  orthodoxy  that  had  no  relation 
to  the  facts  of  Job's  life  did  achieve  :  he  began  the  debate 
blameless,  with  the  unquaUfied  approval  of  God  resting 
upon  him  ;  he  comes  out  of  it  blameworthy,  and  needing 
to  be  terrified  and  humiliated  by  God  into  confession  of 
folly.  j5^et  it  is  curious  (1)  that  Job  had  himself  dwelt 
(ix.  4-10,  xii.  12-25,  and  ?  xxvi.  5-12)  on  the  measureless 
might  and  unsearchable  wisdom  of  God,  and  that  the 
divine  speeches  thus  appear  to  aim  at  bringing  home  to 
him  what  he  had  already  admitted  ;  (2)  that  the  conflicting 
statements  of  the  folly  and  rightness  of  Job's  words  are 
placed  in  such  close  connection  (xlii.  3=xxxviii.  2; 
xlii.  7),  without  any  discrimination  between  what  had 
been  foolish  and  what  rightri  It  is  customary  to  meet 
the  first  difficulty  by  saying  that  Job  did  not  fully 
reaKse  and  quite  seriously  intend  what  he  had  said 
about  God's  wisdom  and  might,  that  at  least  he 
had  been  too  seK-centred  in  his  perplexity  at  his  own 
sufferings,  and  needed  to  have  deepened  in  him  the 
sense  of  the  vastness  of  God's  universe.  It  would  be. 
easier  to  meet  both  difficulties  by  the  theory  that  the 
speeches  of  Yahweh  were  not  an  integral  part  of  the  work, 
were  it  not  that  in  beauty  and  power  these  speeches  are 
unsurpassed  in  the  book.  The  incompatibility  in  form 
between  xUi.  3  and  xUi.  7  could  be  and  has  been  also  met 
by  regarding  the  Epilogue  as  a  subsequent  addition :  or 


122  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [cjh. 

we  might  suppose  that  it  was  derived  from  an  earher 
prose  work  and  the  inconsistency  was  allowed  to  remain. 

It  is  also  difficult  to  reconcile  Job's  soliloquy  on  wisdom 
in  ch.  xxviii.  with  the  divine  speeches ;  for  there  he  seems  to 
have  reached  the  very  frame  of  mind,  viz.  quiet  acquies- 
cence in  the  inscrutable  ways  of  Yahweh,  which  those 
speeches  seem  intended  to  promote.  But  it  is  commonly 
held  that  ch.  xxviii.  is  interpolated ;  for  why,  if  Job  had 
reached  this  quietness  of  mind,  does  he  without  fresh 
reason  (for  his  friends  have  ceased  to  worry  him)  return  to 
his  earher  complaints  and  discontent  in  xxx.  20-23,  xxxi. 
35  ?  If  ch.  xxviii.  and  chs.  xxxviii.  f.  are  so  incompatible 
that  they  cannot  be  attributed  to  the  same  stage  of  the 
work,  then  some  of  the  additions  equal  in  Uterary  and 
reUgious  power  the  original  poem,  for  ch.  xxviii.  also 
ranks  with  the  best  part  of  the  book. 

In  xxvii.  7-23  Job,  in  words  now  attributed  to  him, 
appears  to  go  back  on  his  own  position,  to  adopt  the 
position  of  the  friends,  and  thrust  it  upon  them  as  though 
they  required  instruction  in  it.  If  the  difficulty  cannot 
be  met  by  exegesis,  either  the  passage  is  interpolated,  or 
it  is  a  misplaced  speech  of  one  of  the  friends,  perhaps  of 
Zophar,  who  does  not  in  the  present  text  contribute  to 
the  third  cycle  of  speeches.  Other  instances  of  inter- 
polation or  displacement  whereby  sentiments  are  attributed 
to  Job  which  are  not  considered  to  fit  his  role  have  also 
been  suspected,  and  Professor  Peake,  for  example,  recon- 
structs xxv.-xxvii.  by  assigning  to  Bildad  xxv.  2,  3,  xxvi. 
5-14  ;  to  Job  xxvi.  2-4,  xxvii.  2-6,  11  f.  (the  remainder  of 
Job's  speech  being  assumed  to  have  been  suppressed  on 
account  of  its  outspokenness) ;  to  Zophar  xxvii.  7-10, 
13-23  :  xxv.  4-6  is  then  regarded  as  a  later  addition.  This 
certainly  meets  some  unquestionable  difficulties ;  it  also 
has  the  effect  of  attributing  the  words  in  xxvii.  5-14  that 
anticipate  the  point  of  Yahweh's  speeches  to  Bildad  and 
not  as  at  present  to  Job. 
•^  We  conclude  that  the  Prologue,  the  speeches  of  the 
friends  and  of  Job,  and  the  Epilogue  are  certainly  Integra' 


xm.]  JOB  123 

parts  of  the  book ;   that  the  speeches  of  Elihu  are  not ; 
that  proLably  either  eh.  xxviii.  or  chs.   xxxviii.-xlii.   6 
and  possibly  both  sections  are  interpolated  ;  and  that  the      . 
purpose  of  the  book  is  to  show  the  falseness  of  the  prevalent  l '  I 
judgment  that  a  man  in  adversity  was  necessarily  wicked  I  { 
and  forsaken  of  God :    the  Prologue  and  Epilogue  ahke 
show  the  falseness  of  the  judgment  in  the  particular  case 
of  Job,  and  Job  in  the  debate  shows  that  it  is  widely  in- 
appKcable.  [jf  at  first  this  negative  character  of  the  book 
seem  inadequate,  it  must  be  remembered  how  much  was 
at  stake :   and  that  was  nothing  less  than  the  assurance 
to  a  righteous  sufferer  of  the  reaUty  of  his  communion  with 
God.    Suffering  to  the  Christian  is  an  experience  which 
may  deepen  in  him,  and  certainly  need  not  rob  him  of, 
the  sense  of  the  presence  of  God ;   but  to  the  religiously 
minded  man  under  the  old  dogma  this  was  the  bitterrcst 
element  in  adversity,  that  that  very  adversityproved  him 
God-forsaken :    where  was  now  his  God  ^jMob  in  dis- 
crediting the  old  dogma  won  for  all  future  jlufferers  this   ^^^ 
new  positive  faith  that  adversity  does  not  cut  off  a  man 
from  God.  /  In  working  up  to  this  point  the  book  also 
insists   on  a  greater   reality  and  truth  in  reHgion  than 
either  the  Satan  or  the  friends  had  conceived,  or  those  ^^_ 
admit  who  see  all  religion  crumbUng  away,  if  prosperity  ^^ 
does  not  invariably  await  righteousness,   and  adversity 
wickedness;   in  such  a  world  it  would  be  impossible  to 
bring  home  to  the  Satan,  or  to  humans  of  his  way  of  think- 
ing— and  in  some  measure  the  friends  of  Job  are  the  human 
counterparts  of  the  Satan — or  even  to  the  religious  man  | 
himself,  the  sincerity  of  his  love  of  God.^  I 

(The  Epilogue  is  scarcely  to  be  treated  as  incompatible 
with  the  poem  on  the  ground  that  it  returns  to  a  material 
reward  of  righteousness  :  yet  it  is  true  that  the  Epilogue 
is  not  what  Job  desires,  and  that,  if  it  were,  the  Satan 
might  in  some  sense  be  said  to  have  won  the  day,  and 
the  friends  the  argument,  on  the  ground  that  Job's  fate 
illustrated  afresh  the  formula  that  the  righteous  may 
suffer,   but   that   they  do  not  untimely  or  unrewarded 


124  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

perish.  Suffering  does  not  lead  Job  to  renounce  God 
BpS  the  Satan  had  predicted :  it  leads  him  to  realise  that 
suffering  can  be  borne  if  he  is  sure  of  God  and  sure  of 
God's  approval  of  him ;  when  the  surmise  of  a  return  to 
life  after  death  breaks  through  (xix.  25-27),  it  is  iii_r©- 
sponse  to  the  desire,  not  that  he  may  be  recompensed, 
and  that  life  after  death  may  bring  to  him  reward  for 
his  service  of  God,  but  that  God  may  publicly  vindicate 
him,  and  he  in  ecstatic  vision  know  that  his  communion 
with  God  even  in  suffering  had  been  real.  That  is  the 
real  refutation  of  the  Satanic  taunt :  Job  serves  God  not 
for  the  riches  he  bestows,  which  he  gave  and  took  away 
and  may  give  again,  but  for  himselfH  Prologue  and  Debate 
are  intimately  connected  ;  and  the  Epilogue  does  not  annul 
the  refutation  of  the  Satanic  taunt  and  the  orthodox  dogma 
of  the  friends  which  the  debate  brought  out. 

At  what  period  was  Job  written  ?  The  earliest  direct  ex- 
ternal evidence  to  its  existence  is  that  of  the  Greek  historian 
Aristeas,  who  is  cited  by  Alexander  Polyhistor  (fl.  c.  80-40 
B.C.)  in  a  passage  preserved  in  Eusebius,  Prcep.  Ev.,  ix. 
XXV.  1-3.  This  passage  implies  famiUarity  with  the  Greek 
version,  and  with  EUhu  as  a  person  in  the  story.  From 
the  allusion  in  Ecclus.  xUx.  10,  cited  above  on  p.  115,  it 
cannot  be  inferred  either  that  the  book  existed,  or  did  not 
exist,  c.  180  B.C. ;  if  the  book  existed  and  was  known  to 
Ben  Sirach,  he  may  still  have  preferred  not  to  allude  to  a 
book  that  did  not  yet  rank  as  Scripture. 

As  to  the  actual  poUtical  and  social  conditions  under 
which  the  author  Uved  httle  can  be  inferred  with  certainty  : 
it  was  his  purpose  to  set  his  story  in  patriarchal  conditions, 
and  he  only  by  accident  betrays  the  conditions  of  his  own 
age  or  impUes  acquaintance  with  conditions  later  than  the 
assumed  period  of  the  story.  In  xii.  17-23  he  very  pro- 
bably had  actually  in  mind  the  great  disturbance  in 
political  conditions  and  national  existence  occasioned  by 
the  westward  movement  of  Assyria,  in  the  eighth  century, 
the  conquering  career  of  the  Neo-Babylonian  empire  in 


xm.]  JOB  126 

the  sixth  century,  or  of  the  Persian  empire  later ;  we  may 
in  particular  think  (cp.  xii.  19)  of  the  captivity  of  Israel 
in  722,  or  of  Judah  in  686. 

In  the  main  the  determination  of  date  will  turn  upon 
the  conclusions  to  which  the  religious  ideas,  the  Hterary 
aflSnities,  and  the  style  and  language  of  the  book  seem  to 
point. 

All  parts  of  the  poem  are  written  from  the  standpoint  of 
an  absolute  monotheism  which  we  should  not  expect  before 
the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century,  and  should  most 
naturally  look  for  in  a  contemporary,  or,  rather,  since  the 
idea  is  assumed  not  proved,  in  a  successor,  of  the  Deutero- 
Isaiah.  The  universahty  of  God's  activity  and  knowledge 
(cp.  Ps.  cxxxix.)  is  one  of  the  leading  thoughts  in  the 
speeches  of  Yahweh  ;  but  it  is  implicit  also  in  the  world- 
wide wanderings  of  his  subordinate  the  Satan  in  the 
Prologue,  and  frequently  finds  expression  in  the  speeches 
of  Job,  the  friends,  and  Elihu. 

The  central  problem  of  the  book,  the  suffering  of  the 
righteous  individual^  would  only  arise  acutely  after  the 
religious  value  of  the  individual  had  been  established  along 
two  different  Hues  by  Jeremiah  (fl.  626-586)  and  Ezekiel 
(fl.  592-671).  But  the  problem  could  not  have  been  argued, 
as  it  is,  with  a  total  disregard  of  life  after  death,  if  the 
belief  in  the  resurrection  and  future  life  had  already  reached 
the  clearness  with  which  it  is  expressed  in  Daniel  and  early 
parts  of  Enoch  (both  c.  165  B.C.),  or  even  in  Is.  xxiv.-xxvi. 
(7  fourth  century  B.C.).  On  the  other  hand  xix.  25-27 
rather  suggests  that  the  idea  of  a  vision  of  God  after  death 
was  already  forming,  that  a  question  had  arisen  though  no 
dogma  had  been  formulated.  The  book  of  Job  seems  to 
have  been  written  towards  the  end  of  the  period  in  which 
Hebrew  religion  had  dispensed  with  the  idea  of  resurrection 
or  a  life  of  blessedness  after  death. 

The  deeper  ethical  ideals  of  ch.  xxxi.  are  best  understood 
as  the  harvest  of  prophetic  teaching.  The  Satan  of  the 
Prologue  is  unknown  to  any  existing  monument  of  pre- 
exilic  reUgion.  and  the  contrast  between  2  Sam.  xxiv.  1 


126  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [OH. 

and  1  Chron.  xxi.  1  suggests  that  he  actually  first  appears 
in  Hebrew  religion  relatively  late,  not  long  before  Zechariah 
(fl.  520  B.C.),  in  whose  reference  (iii.  1-10)  a  careful  study 
may,  perhaps,  discern  the  genesis  of  the  Satan  of  Job. 

Parallel  passages  bear  a  different  significance  to  different 
investigators ;  and  out  of  the  large  number  of  parallels 
between  Job  and  other  books,  especially  the  books  of  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  Lamentations,  Proverbs,  and  Psalms,  it  must 
suffice  to  refer  to  two.  Though  the  opposite  opinion  has 
been  held,  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  believe  that  Jeremiah, 
who  was  not,  Hke  the  author  of  Job,  composing  an  elaborate 
imaginative  work,  is  the  borrower  rather  than  the  creator 
of  the  ideas  common  to  Jer.  xx.  14-18  and  Job  iii.  3-10  :  the 
author  of  Job  may  have  suffered  as  much  as  Jeremiah,  but 
he,  in  form  at  least,  is  expressing  the  feeling  not  of  himself, 
but  of  a  person  of  his  imagination,  and  in  doing  so  he  may 
well  have  taken  a  suggestion  from  the  spontaneous  cry  of 
the  prophet.  Again,  the  parody  in  Job  vii.  17  must  be 
later  than  the  fines  of  Ps.  viu.  4  which  are  parodied  ;  but 
Ps.  viu.  is  probably  based  on  P,  and  was  itself  therefore 
written  later  than  c.  500  B.C.  if  we  accept  that  date  for  P. 

In  constructing  his  mise  en  seine  the  author  seems  to 
have  been  guided  by  the  descriptions  of  the  patriarchal 
age,  not  in  any  one  source  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  in  the 
complete  work  including  P  ;  the  individual  indications  are 
sfight  and  deficate,  but  taken  together  they  are  by  no  means 
without  weight:  note  e.g.  the  reference  in  xfii.  11  (R.V. 
marg.)  to  the  keaitdh,  which  is  mentioned  elsewhere  only  in 
Gen.  xxxiii.  19  ;  Jos.  xxi  v.  32  (E) ;  in  xxi.  12,  xxx.  31  to 
•ihe  primeval  (Gen.  iv.  21  (J),  xxxi.  27  (E) )  musical  instru- 
ments, though  these  indeed  continued  in  use  also  in  late 
times ;  in  xlii.  8  the  similarity  in  the  offering  to  that  of 
Balaam  (Num.  xxiii.  1  (JE) ),  who  fike  Job*s  friends  was  not 
anisraefite;  in  xfii.  16, 17  the  resemblance  to  thephraseology 
of  P  in  his  summaries  of  fife  and  record  of  death  (Gen. 
xxxv.  28  f.,  V.  10, 11) ;  and  the  use  throughout  the  dialogue 
of  Shaddai,  the  Almighty  (cp.  Ex.  vi.  3  P),  a  term  which  is 
used  with  frequency  only  in  Job.  and  in  P'a  narratives  ^* 


xuil  JOB  127 

the  pre-Mosaio  period.  Note  also  the  possible  influence  of 
J's  account  of  creation  (Gen.  ii.  7,  iii.  19)  on  x.  9,  xxvii.  3, 
of  Fs  (Gen.  i.)  on  xii.  7-10. 

As  to  the  style  and  language  :  both  from  the  prose  and 
poetry  of  the  book  certain  features  that  occur  in  much  at 
least  of  the  very  latest  Kterature  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
absent.  The  prose  might  well  belong  to  the  same  age  as 
Ruth  ;  it  is  altogether  superior  to  that  of  Esther  or  Daniel, 
and  contains  neither  Greek  words  Uke  Daniel,  nor  Persian 
words  Uke  Esther,  Daniel,  and  other  late  books.  On  the 
other  hand  there  is  a  considerable  Aramaic  tinge  to  the 
language  of  the  book.  The  language  could  be  well  explained 
as  that  of  a  work  written  after,  yet  not  too  long  after,  the 
Exile. 

The  various  lines  of  arguments  converge  to  indicate  as 
the  most  probable  time  when  the  book  was  written  a  date 
about  400  B.C. ;  a  somewhat  later  date  would  not  be  ruled 
out  if  Is.  xxiv.-xxvii.  and  the  emergence  of  a  doctrine 
of  a  future  life  are  not  to  be  placed  so  early  as  the  fourth 
century  B.C.  But  in  any  case  the  book  must  have  been 
complete  well  before  the  close  of  the  second  century  B.o. 


128  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oa. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE  PSALMS 

The  Psalter  contains,  according  to  the  division  of  the 
Hebrew  text,  one  hundred  and  fifty  poems ;  the  Greek 
version  contains  one  hundred  and  fifty-one,  but  the  last 
of  these  is  described  as  *  outside  the  number.'  This  number 
does  not  exactly  correspond  to  the  number  of  different 
poems.  On  the  one  hand,  there  are  one  or  two  clear  cases, 
and  there  may  be  others  less  clear,  of  a  single  Psalm  having 
been  wrongly  divided  into  two ;  thus  Pss.  ix.  and  x.  are 
shown  by  the  continuance  of  the  acrostic  scheme  through 
the  latter  Psalm  to  have  once  formed,  as  they  still  do  in  the 
Greek  version,  a  single  poem.  So  Pss.  xlii.,  xliii.  are  shown 
by  the  recurrence  of  the  same  refrain  (xlii.  5,  11,  xliii.  5)  to 
be  one  poem.  Probably  in  a  larger  number  of  cases,  owing 
to  an  opposite  fortune,  two  poems  originally  distinct  have 
been  joined  together  under  a  single  number.  A  clear 
instance  of  this  kind  is  Ps.  cviii.,  which  consists  of  two 
Psalms  or  fragments  of  Psalms  (viz.  Ivii.  7-11,  Ix.  6-12). 
Among  the  more  generally  suspected  instances  of  the  same 
kind  are  Ps.  xix.  (=vv.  1-6+7-14),  xxiv.  (= w.  1-6+7-10)  ; 
xxvii.  (=vv.  1-6+7-14),  and  xxxvi.  (=1-4+5-12). 

The  Psalter  does  not  contain  quite  the  whole  of  what 
survives  of  Jewish  hterature  of  this  type.  A  few  Psalms 
not  included  in  the  Psalter  are  found  in  other  books  :  see, 
e.g.,  1  Sam.  ii.  1-10  ;  Is.  xii.,  xxxviii.  10-20  ;  Hab.  iii.  And 
we  have  another  important,  though  much  smaller  collection 
of  Psalms  in  the  *  Psalms  of  Solomon/  written  about  63  b.o. 
These,  with  such  New  Testament  Psalms  as  Luke  i.  46-65, 
68-79,    are   important   as    showing   that    the    period   of 


XIV.]  THE  PSALMS  129 

Psalm  composition  extended  beyond  the  close  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

The  history  of  the  Psalms  and  the  Psalter  is  obscm-e ; 
and  many  conclusions  with  regard  to  it  rest,  and  for  lack 
of  other  independent  evidence  must  rest,  on  previous  con- 
clusions as  to  the  origin  and  Uterary  history  of  other 
Hebrew  and  Jewish  Uterature.  Conclusive  external  evid- 
ence for  the  existence  of  the  Psalter  in  its  'present  extent  does 
not  carry  us  very  far  back  beyond  the  close  of  the  Jewish 
Canon  ;  but  the  mode  of  allusion  to  the  Psalms  in  the  New 
Testament  renders  it  very  unlikely  that  the  book  was  still 
open  to  additions  in  the  first  century  a.d.  ;  and  the  fact 
that  none  of  the  '  Psalms  of  Solomon '  gained  admission, 
and  that  this  collection  by  its  title  perhaps  presupposes  the 
canonical  '  Psalms  of  David '  renders  it  probable  that  the 
Psalter  was  complete,  and  not  open  to  further  additions, 
some  time  before  63  B.C.  Other  evidence,  such  as  that 
derived  from  the  substantial  agreement  of  the  Greek  version 
with  the  Hebrew  text,  does  not  carry  the  proof  for  the 
existence  of  the  Psalter  in  its  present  extent  much  further. 
The  net  result  is  that,  if  not  impossible,  it  is  unsafe  to 
place  the  completion  of  the  Psalter  much  below  100  B.C. 

Behind  that  date  Ues  a  long  history ;  for  the  Psalter 
represents  the  conclusion  of  a  complex  literary  growth  or 
development.  We  may  note,  first,  two  things  that  prove 
this  general  fact  that  the  Psalter  is  not  a  simple  edition 
of  the  poems  of  a  single  man  or  a  single  age,  nor  the  first 
collection  of  its  kind.  (1)  At  the  close  of  Ps.  Ixxii.  stand 
the  words  :  *  The  prayers  of  David  the  son  of  Jesse  are 
ended.*  This  is  intelligible  if  the  remark  once  closed  an 
independent  collection  and  was  taken  over  with  the 
collection  by  the  compiler  of  a  larger  work.  But  apart  from 
some  such  hypothesis  as  this  it  is  not  intelligible  ;  for  the 
remark  is  not  true  of  the  Psalter  as  we  have  it ;  the  prayers 
of  David  are  not  ended :  other  Psalms  actually  entitled 
*  prayers '  and  described  as  *  of  David '  are  Pss.  Ixxxvi.  and 
cxlii.  ;  and  several  subsequent  Psalms  assigned  to  David 
are,  without  being  so  entitled,  actually  prayers.     (2)  The 

I 


130  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

same  Psalm  is  repeated  in  different  parts  of  the  Psalter  with 
slight  textual  or  editorial  variations  :  thus  Ps.  xiv.=sPs.  liii.; 
xl.  13-17=lxx. ;  cviii.=lvii.  7-11+lx.  5-12.  The  Psalter, 
then,  was  composed  by  drawing  on,  and  in  some  cases 
incorporating,  earlier  collections  of  Psalms. 

Our  next  questions  are :  How  many  collections  earher 
than  the  Psalter  can  be  traced  ?  How  far  can  the  methods 
of  the  editor  who  drew  on  or  combined  these  earUer  collec- 
tions be  discerned  ?  The  first  clue  to  the  first  question  may 
be  found  in  the  distribution  of  the  titles  referring  to  persons ; 
the  more  significant  features  of  this  distribution  may  be 
shown  thus — 

1.  Pss.  i.  ii.  are  without  title. 

2.  Pss.  iii.-xli.  are  all  entitled  *  of  David,'  except  Ps.  x., 

which  is  a  continuation  of  Ps.  ix.  (see  above) 
and  Ps.  xxxiii. 

3.  Pss.  xlii.-xHx.  are  all  entitled  *of  the  sons  of  Korah,' 

except  Ps.  xUii.,  which  is  a  continuation  of 
Ps.  xhi.  (see  above). 

4.  Ps.  1.  is  entitled  '  of  Asaph.* 

5.  Pss.  li.-lxxii.  are  all  entitled  *  of  David,'  except 

Pss.  Ixvi.,  Ixvii.,  Ixxi.,  Ixxii. 

6.  Pss.  Ixxiii.-lxxxiii.  are  all  entitled  *  of  Asaph.' 

7.  Of  Pss.  Ixxxiv.-lxxxix.,  four  (Ps.  Lxxxiv.,  Ixxxv., 

Lxxxvii.,  Ixxxviii.)  are  entitled  *  of  the  sons  of 
Korah,*  one  (Ps.  Ixxxvi.)  '  of  David '  and  one 
(Ps.  Ixxxix.)  *  of  Ethan.' 

8.  Pss.  cxx.-cxxxiv.  are  aU  entitled  *  Songs  (so  rather 

than  **  A  song  "  R.V.)  of  Ascent.' 
The  remaining  forty-six  Psalms  (xc.-cxix.,  cxxxv.-cl.) 
are  either  without  title,  or  the  titles  are  not  the 
same  in  any  considerable  number  of  consecutive 
Psalms  (but  note  cviii.-cx.  and  cxxxviii.-cidv. 
entitled  *  of  David  '). 

Now,  if  it  stood  by  itself,  the  statement  at  the  close  of 
Ps.  Ixxii.  could  be  explained  by  a  single  process — the 
incorporation  of  a  previous  coUjection  consisting  of  Pss.  i.- 


xiv.l  THE  PSALMS  131 

Ixxii.  by  an  editor  who  added  these  to  Pss.  Ixxiii.-cl.  derived 
from  other  sources.  But  within  Pss.  i.-lxxii.  we  have  two 
occurrences  of  the  same  Psahn  (Ps.  xiv.=Pss.  Hii.),  which  in 
itself  indicates  that  in  Pss.  i.-lxxii.  at  least  two  hymn-books 
are  combined.  Again,  Ps.  hii.  differs  from  Ps.  xiv.  by  the 
entire  absence  from  it  of  the  name  Yahweh,  and  the  use  in 
four  places  of  the  name  *  God/  where  Ps.  xiv.  uses  Yahweh. 
So  also  in  Ps.  lxx.=Ps.  xl.  13-17  Yahweh  is  twice  retained, 
but  thrice  it  is  replaced  by  *  God.'  But  the  editorial  activity 
thus  impUed  proves  on  examination  to  have  affected  the 
entire  group  of  Pss.  xlii.-lxxxiii. ;  for  the  difference  in  the 
use  of  the  names  Yahweh '  *  and  *  God '  between  Pss.  i.-xli., 
and  Pss.  xHi.-lxxxiii.  is  remarkable :  in  Pss.  i.-x]i.  *  Yahweh  * 
occurs  two  hundred  and  seventy-two  times,  *  God '  (abso- 
lutely) fifteen  times ;  in  Pss.  xHi.-lxxxiii.  *  Yahweh  '  forty- 
three  times,  but  *  God '  two  hundred  times.  Now  this 
Elohistic  Psalter,  as  Pss.  xUi.-lxxxiii.  are  termed  on  account 
of  the  marked  preference  which  is  shown  in  them  for  the 
term  Elohim=^  God,*  is  one  of  the  earher  collections 
embodied  in  our  Psalter ;  but  it  is  itself  in  turn  derived 
from  different  sources  ;  for  it  includes  the  group  of  Davidio 
Psalms  which  closes  with  the  statement  that  theJPrayers  of 
David  are  ended — a  statement  which,  though  not  true  of  the 
whole  Psalter,  is  true  of  this  earher  Psalter,  for  between 
Pss.  Ixxiii.-lxxxiii.  no  prayer  of  David  occurs.  It  also 
includes  Psalms  *  of  the  sons  of  Korah '  and  *  of  Asaph.' 
Very  possibly  this  Elohistic  Psalter  has  not  reached  us  in 
its  original  condition ;  for  (1)  the  untitled  Psalms  may 
have  been  subsequently  inserted ;  and  (2)  the  Psalms 
entitled  '  of  Asaph  '  may  have  once  stood  all  together  :  at 
present  Ps.  1.  stands  isolated  from  the  rest  (Pss.  Ixxiii.- 
Ixxxiii.). 

In  addition  to  the  occurrence  of  Psalms  in  two  recensions 
and  the  occurrence  of  similar  titles  in  groups,  another 
feature  points  to  earher  independent  books  of  Psalms : 
this  is  the  occurrence  of  a  doxology  or  suitable  concluding 
formula  at  certain  points  in  the  Psalter,  viz.  xU.  13  at  the 
end  of  the  first  group  of  Psalms  entitled  *  of  David ' ; 


132  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [CH. 

Ixxii.  18,  19  immediately  before  the  statement  that  the 
Prayers  of  David  are  ended  ;  and  Ixxxix.  52.  See  also 
cvi.  48  and  cl.,  which  last  Psalm  in  its  entirety  may  be  taken 
as  an  enlarged  doxology  at  the  close  of  the  completed 
Psalter.  The  doxologies  at  the  end  of  Pss.  xli.  and  Ixxii. 
occur  at  points  which  we  have  already  found  reason  for 
regarding  as  the  close  of  collections ;  that  in  Ixxxix.  52, 
however,  occurs  not  at  the  close  of  the  Elohistic  Psalms,  but 
six  Psalms  later.  Now  five  of  these  six  Psalms  are  drawn 
from  the  same  sources  as  supplied  the  Elohistic  editor,  viz. 
from  the  *  prayers  of  David '  (Ps.  Ixxxvi.)  and  the  book 
*  of  the  sons  of  Korah.'  In  Pss.  xlii. -Ixxxix.  we  not  impro- 
bably have  the  original  Elohistic  Psalter  (Ps.  xlii.-lxxxiii.) 
enlarged  by  the  addition  of  an  appendix  (Ps.  Ixxxiv.- 
ixxxix.),  in  which  the  name  *  Yahweh*  was  left  unchanged, 
and  consequently  the  form  *  Elohim  *  ceases  to  predominate. 
From  the  evidence  thus  far  considered  or  suggested  (it 
cannot  here  be  given  in  greater  detail),  we  may  infer  some 
such  stages  as  these  in  the  history  of  the  Psalms  before  the 
completion  of  the  Psalter  : — 

1.  Compilation  of  a  book  entitled  *  of  David  *  and  in- 

cluding Pss.   iii.-xll.  (except  the  untitled  Ps. 
xxxiii.). 

2.  Compilation  of  a  second  hymn-book  entitled  *  of 

David  *  (Pss.  li.-lxxii.,  with  exceptions). 

3.  Compilation  of  a  book  entitled  *  of  Asaph  '  (Asaph 

being  the  name  of  a  guild  of  singers,  Ezra  ii.  41). 

4.  Compilation  of  a  book  entitled   'of  the  sons  of 

Korah  *  (also  probably  a  guild  of  singers ;  of. 
2  Chron.  xx.  19). 
6.  Compilation  of  the  'Elohistic  Psalter'  out  of  Psalms 
derived  from  2,  3,  4  by  an  editor  who  generally 
substituted  '  Elohim  '  ('  God  ')  for  *  Yahweh.' 

6.  Enlargement  of  6  by  the  addition  of  Pss.  Ixxxiv.- 

Ixxxix. 

7.  Compilation  of  a   book   entitled '    Songs  of    the 

Ascent*.* 


XIV.]  THE  PSALMS  133 

Can  we  detect  the  eidstence  of  other  earlier  Psalters  ? 
So  far  we  have  mainly  taken  account  of  titles  of  one  type 
only  and  of  titles  which  occur  in  groups.  Dr.  Briggs 
carries  the  argument  from  titles  to  the  existence  of  collec- 
tions of  Psalms  further ;  and  infers  that  there  was  a 
collection  of  Middams  or  choice  psalms,  whence  Pss.  xvi. 
Ivi.-lx.  and  Is.  xxxviii.  9-20  were  drawn ;  another  collection  of 
Maschils  or  meditations,  whence  Pss.  xxxii.,  xlii.-xlv.,  lii-lv., 
Ixxiv.,  Ixxviii.,  Ixxxviii.,  Ixxxix.,  cxhi.  were  derived ;  another 
collection  of  Psalms  proper,  of  poems  set  to  music,  whence 
the  fifty-seven  Psalms  described  in  the  titles  as  mizmor 
((E.V.  *  psalm  ')  were  derived  ;  and  yet  another  collection 
which  bore  the  name  of  the  musical  director  or  choir 
master  (E.V.  '  the  chief  musician '),  whence  the  fifty-five 
Psalms  so  entitled  were  derived.  If  this  be  the  case,  then 
the  composite  titles  enable  us  to  see  that  many  Psalms 
stood  successively  in  two  or  three  collections  before  they 
obtained  their  place  in  the  completed  Psalter ;  e.g.  Ps.  xix. 
— entitled  *  of  (or  belonging  to)  the  chief  musician,  a 
Psalm,  of  (or  belonging  to)  David ' — had  previously  been 
included  in  three  distinct  collections  ;  and  so  also  Ps.  xliv. 
— entitled  *  of  the  chief  musician,  of  the  sons  of  Korah, 
Maschil.'  Perhaps  the  strongest  case  for  these  further 
collections  is  that  of  the  chief  musician's  Psalter ;  in  any 
case,  it  is  a  fact  that  the  preposition  prefixed  to  the  *  chief 
musician*  is  the  same  as  that  prefixed  to  *  David'  or 

*  Asaph '  or  *  the  sons  of  Korah,'  though  in  the  first  case 
R.V.  renders  *for'  and  in  the  other  oases  *of.'  Conse- 
quently, since  in  many  cases  it  is  impossible,  owing  to 
intervening  words  (e.g.  in  Pss.  xii.,  xlv).,  to  interpret  such 
combinations  as  *  of  the  chief  musician,  of  David,'  *  of  the 
chief  musician,  of  the  sons  of  Korah '  of  joirU  authorship, 
we  must  either  see  in  them  conflicting  ascriptions  of  author- 
ship placed  side  by  side,  or,  far  more  probably,  as  just 
suggested,  the  titles  of  collections  of  Psahns  or  hymn- 
books  to  which  they  had  previously  belonged.  It  is  then 
highly  probable  that  in  the  first  instance  such  titles  as 

*  of  David,'  *  of  Asaph,'  *  of  the  sons  of  Korah,'  were  neither 


i34   CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

intended  nor  understood  to  name  the  author  of  the  Psalm 
in  question.  But  if  this  were  so,  we  can  also  see  that 
before  the  final  stage  in  the  growth  of  the  Psalter  they 
were  misunderstood ;  for  the  title  *  of  David '  clearly 
implied  authorship  to  the  author(s)  of  the  longer  titles  in 
Pss.  vii.  and  xviii. :  it  is  scarcely  less  clear  that  the  title 
implied  authorship  to  the  authors  of  other  titles  that 
suggest  an  historical  setting  (see,  e.g.,  Ps.  iii.,  Ivii.). 

Is  it  possible  to  determine  the  dates  at  which  any  of 
these  collections  of  Psalms  were  made  ?  Obviously  they 
are  earUer  than  the  completion  of  the  Psalter,  i.e,  than 
about  100  B.C.  (see  above)  ;  obviously  also  the  collections 
were  later  than  the  latest  Psalm  which  they  originally  con- 
tained. One  or  more  Psalms  in  all  the  collections  show 
more  or  less  generally  admitted  signs  of  being  post-exiUc. 
The  various  collections  therefore  which  we  have  in  the 
Psalter  were  compiled  between  the  sixth  and  the  second 
centuries  B.C.  By  arguments  which  cannot  here  be  repro- 
duced, Robertson  Smith,  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
Jewish  Churchy  ch.  vii.,  reached  the  following  conclusions 
in  deta^?  The  first  Davidic  collection  (Ps.  iii.-xli.)  was 
compiled  about  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah ;  the 
second  Davidic  collection  (Pss.  li.-lxxii)  in  the  fourth 
century ;  the  Asaphite  (Pss.  1.,  Ixxiii.-lxxxiii)  and  Korahite 
(Pss.  xlii.-xhx.)  collections  between  430  and  330  B.C.  Dr. 
Briggs  places  the  Korahite  and  Asaphite  collections  some- 
what later — after  B.C.  332 ;  the  Elohistic  Psalter  (Pss. 
xlii.-lxxxiii.)  and  the  chief  musician's  collection  in  the 
third  century  B.C.  But  whatever  the  value  of  these 
detailed  conclusions,  which  are  not  all  very  secure,  one 
general  fact  of  much  importance  already  stands  out : 
the  period  between  the  Exile  and  the  first  century  B.C. 
was  marked  by  much  activity  in  the  collection  and  editing 
of  Psalms ;  and  this,  apart  from  the  dates  of  individual 
Psalms,  is  significant  for  the  part  played  by  the  Psalms 
in  the  religious  life  of  the  post-exilic  community. 

From  the  collections  we  pass  to  the  difficult  and  much 
disoussed  question  of  the  dates  of  the  individual  Psalms. 


xiv.J  THE  PSALMS  135 

All  that  will  be  possible  here  is  to  point  out  certain  general 
lines  of  evidence  with  one  or  two  illustrations  in  detail. 
//  the  detailed  conclusions  with  reference  to  the  collections 
are  sound,  a  minimum  date  is  fixed  for  many  Psalms : 
e.g.  Pss.  iii.-xli.  (except  the  untitled  Ps.  xxxiii.)  are  not 
later  than  about  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah ;  Pss. 
xlii.-xlix.  and  1.,  Ixxiii.-lxxxiii.  not  later  (on  Robertson 
Smith's  theory)  than  330  B.C.,  and  so  on.  The  collections 
are  indeed  post-exiUc,  but  in  itself  that  need  not  prevent 
even  the  whole  of  the  Psalms  being  pre-exilic  :  the  collec- 
tions might  be  post-exihc  hymn-books  composed  entirely 
of  ancient  hymns.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  not  all  the  Psalms 
are  pre-exiUc ;  many  of  the  individual  Psalms  are  some- 
what clearly  of  post-exilic  origin  ;  indeed,  there  is  a  fairly 
general  consensus  of  opinion  that  the  majority,  a  con- 
siderable body  of  opinion  that  the  great  majority,  of  the 
Psalms  is  post-exilic.  Signs  of  exilic  or  post-exilic 
origin  are  :  (1)  Allusions  to  the  Exile  or  the  desolation  of 
Sion,  as  a  present  or  past  fact,  as  the  case  may  be  :  see  e.g. 
H.  18  f.,  Ixxxix.  44-51,  cii.  13,  16,  cvi.  47,  cvii.  3  fif.,  cxxvi.  1, 
cxxxvii.  1,  cxlvii.  2.  The  profanation  of  the  Temple  by 
the  heathen  alluded  to  in  Pss.  Ixxiv.  and  Ixxix  may  refer 
rather  to  the  events  of  Maccabaean  times  (B.C.  165)  than  to 
586.  (2)  Other  allusions  to  social  and  poKtical  conditions, 
such  as  the  frequent  division  of  the  Jews  into  religious 
parties,  with  the  use  of  terms  like  *  the  poor,  '  the  '  pious  ' 
(Hasidim)  as  party  names ;  but  this  and  other  such  allu- 
sions are  differently  interpreted  and  weighed  by  different 
scholars.  (3)  Language  such  as  that  of,  e.g.,  Pss.  cxvi., 
cxxxix. ;  style  and  language  in  many  other  Psalms  is  less 
conclusive  though  (granted  certain  previous  conclusions) 
not  without  weight.  (4)  Dependence  upon  exilic  and 
post-exiHc  writings  :  e.g.  Pss.  xciii.,  xcvi.-c.  almost  cer- 
tainly, and  Ps.  xlvii.  most  probably,  imply  familiarity  on 
the  part  of  the  writer  with  much  of  Is.  xl.-lxvi.  (5)  The 
presence  of  certain  religious  ideas  which  were  only  developed 
late  in  the  history  of  Israel's  religion.  There  is  much 
variety  of  judgment  ae  to  the  number  of  Psalms  and  tho 


136  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ca 

particular  Psalms  shown  by  these  criteria  to  be  late,  but, 
as  previously  stated,  it  is  admittedly  large.  Strictly 
speaking,  indeed,  these  criteria  determine  the  date  of 
those  sections  only  to  which  they  apply,  not  necessarily 
that  of  the  entire  Psalm  ;  and  if  it  can  be  shown  that  the 
obviously  post-exiUc  sections  in  any  particular  Psalm  are 
interpolations,  the  rest  of  the  Psalm  may  be  (but,  of 
course,  by  no  means  necessarily  is)  pre-exiUc.  Dr.  Briggs 
in  his  Commentary  has  carried  the  hypothesis  of  inter- 
polation far,  using  as  his  test  certain  theories  of  metre  and 
strophe. 

What,  then,  are  the  positive  criteria  for  pre-exilio  Psalms 
or  for  pre-exiUc  elements  in  Psalms  which  may  show 
in  parts  obvious  signs  of  post-exiUc  origin  ?  Failing  such 
criteria  the  Psalms  cannot  be  shown  to  be  considerably 
earher  than  the  post-exilic  collections  in  which  they  have 
come  down  to  us.  The  criterion  of  pre-exiUc  date  most 
reUed  on  is  an  allusion  to  the  king ;  from  the  fall  of  the 
Monarchy  in  686  B.C.  down  to  105  B.C.,  when  Aristobulus  i. 
assumed  the  title  of  king,  there  was  no  native  king  of 
Judah.  Now,  since  in,  e.gr.,  Pss.  xx.,  xxi.  the  allusion  to 
the  king  cannot  satisfactorily  be  explained  of  a  foreign 
monarch,  and  these  Psalms  cannot  be  as  late  as  105  B.C., 
it  appears  to  follow  that  they  originated  before  586  B.C. 
Other  Psalms  alluding  to  a  king  who  cannot  well  be 
a  foreigner,  nor  have  hved  so  late  as  105  B.C.,  are  Ps.  ii., 
xviii.,  xxviii.,  xlv.,  bd.,  bdii.,  Ixxii.  Yet  there  still  remains 
a  question  of  interpretation :  Is  the  king  in  these  Psalms 
an  actual  contemporary  individual,  or  the  Messianic  king 
whether  regarded  as  an  individual  or  as  the  royal  people 
of  Israel  ?  ^  If  the  latter  interpretation  is  correct  (as,  e.^., 
in  the  case  of  Ps.  ii.  at  least,  it  probably  is)  the  value  of 
the  allusion  as  a  criterion  of  pre-exilic  date  vanishes ;  for 
a  reference  to  a  king  who  is  not  a  person  of  history,  but  an 
ideal  conception,  is  not  less  probable  in  a  post-eidlic  than 
in  a  pre-eidlic  poem.  Further,  a  purely  proverbial  allusion 
to  the  king,  such  as  occurs  in  Ps.  xxxiii.  16,  furnishes  no 
1  8m  Jewish  Quarterly  lUvUw,  1895,  p.  668  C 


XIV.]  THE  PSALMS  137 

valid  criterion  for  pre-exilic  origin,  nor  does  an  allusion  to 
kings  in  the  plural  {e.g,  Ps.  cxix.  46,  cxlviii.  11) ;  see  p.  146. 

If,  as  the  previous  remarks  should  have  suggested,  it 
is  in  most  cases  only  possible  even  to  determine  whether 
a  Psalm  is  pre-exiUc  or  post-exilic  on  evidence  somewhat 
widely  applicable,  and  in  many  cases  impossible  to  deter- 
mine even  this  quite  decisively,  it  should  be  clear  that  the 
attempt  to  fix  the  authorship  or  dates  of  Psalms  very 
precisely  must  generally  prove  fruitless.  Are  there  any 
that  can  be  referred  even  with  great  probability  to  a 
particular  occasion  as  that  of  their  origin  or  to  a  particular 
writer  ?  The  mere  fact  that  a  Psalm  may  appear  to  us 
suitable  to  a  particular  occasion,  as,  e.g.,  Ps.  xlvi.  to  the 
deUverance  from  Sennacherib  in  701,  does  not  necessarily 
prove  that  it  even  refers  to  it,  still  less  that  it  was  written 
at  the  time  ;  the  question  arises,  Is  the  occasion  in  question 
the  only  one  to  which  the  terms  of  the  Psalm  are  appHcable, 
or  are  those  terms  sufficiently  specific  to  render  it  improbable 
that  the  Psalm  might  have  fitted  other  occasions  unknown 
to  us,  or  but  partially  known  ?  Thus  Pss.  xHv.,  Ixxiv., 
Lxxix.,  cxviii.  presuppose  conditions  which  resemble  what 
is  known  of  the  period  of  the  Maccabsean  revolt  (cf. 
1  Maccabees)  more  closely  than  what  is  known  of  any 
other  period,  and  on  that  ground  they  have  been  by  many 
assigned  to  the  Maccabsean  period  :  the  question  is,  Are 
the  descriptions  so  specific  that  they  might  not  also  corre- 
spond to  the  conditions  of  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century 
B.C.  (to  which  other  scholars  have  referred  Pss.  xliv.,  Lxxiv., 
lxxix.)  if  we  were  equally  well  informed  with  regard  to 
these  ? 

The  question  of  authorship  retains  an  interest  only  with 
reference  to  David.  The  theory  that  David  was  the 
author  of  Psalms  can  be  traced  back  as  far  as  the  time 
(not  to  be  dated  very  precisely,  but  centuries  at  least 
after  David's  time)  when  the  historical  notes  were  added 
in  certain  Psahns  to  the  title  '  of  David '  (see  above;. 
Whether  it  goes  back  further  (except  in  the  case  of  Ps.  xviii. 
■=2  Sam.  xxii. ;  see  below),  to  the  time  of  the  origin  of  the 


138  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ca 

collection  entitled  '  of  David,'  is  less  clear,  for  it  is  by  no 
means  certain  that  the  similar  title  *  of  the  chief  musician ' 
referred  to  authorship  (see  above).  Still,  we  may  consider 
the  argument  which,  based  on  the  assumption  that  it  did, 
is  to  the  effect  that  if  so  many  Psalms  (as  seventy-three  in 
the  Hebrew  text,  more  in  the  Greek  text,  and  all  in  later 
Jewish  tradition)  were  attributed  to  David,  some  must 
actually  be  his,  though  many  so  entitled  are  demonstrably 
and  admittedly  not.  The  argument  at  best  does  not  seem 
to  justify  more  than  a  strong  probability  that  David 
wrote  psalms ;  and  possibly  the  fact  that  David  was  a 
famous  poet,  even  though  all  his  poems  more  nearly 
resembled  2  Sam.  i.  19-27  than  the  Psalms,  coupled  with 
his  fame  as  a  zealous  worshipper  of  Yahweh,  may  be  the 
extent  of  the  historical  fact  underlying  the  late  traditions. 
But  even  granted  that  the  evidence  were  strong  enough 
to  justify  the  statement  that  some  Psalms  of  David  are 
preserved  in  the  Psalter,  the  most  important  problem  still 
remains  to  be  solved,  viz.  which  Psalms  in  particular  are 
David's  ?  It  will  be  found  on  an  examination  that  the 
positive  reasons  assigned  for  regarding  any  particular 
Psalm  as  David's  are  inconclusive  :  they  often  amount  to 
nothing  more  than  an  argument  that  there  is  nothing  in 
such  and  such  Psalms  which  forbids  us  to  ascribe  them  to 
David.  There  are  some  Psalms  which  in  whole  or  in  part 
may  not  be  incompatible  with  what  we  know  of  David's 
life,  but  the  allusions  are  too  general  to  enable  us  to  deny 
that  they  are  equally  applicable  to  many  other  Uves. 
The  Psalm  which  is  most  generally  claimed  for  David  by 
those  who  go  beyond  the  general  argument  and  specify 
particular  Psalms  as  his  is  Ps.  xviii. ;  but  many  who  hold 
this  to  be  in  the  main  David's,  feel  compelled  to  treat 
vv.  20-27  as  later.  An  external  argument  in  favour  of 
the  Davidic  authorship  of  this  Psalm  has  often  been 
sought  in  the  fact  that  it  appears  in  2  Sam.  xxii.  as  well 
as  in  the  Psalter ;  but  the  argument  is  of  little  value ; 
it  carries  xis  back  indeed  beyond  the  evidence  of  the  Psalm- 
titles,  but  the  Books  of  Samuel  were  composed  long  after 


XIV.]  THE  PSALMS  139 

David's  time,  and  2  Sam.  xxii.  occurs  in  a  section  which 
shows  signs  of  insertion  after  the  main  work  was  complete 
(see  ch.  viii.).  We  may  safely  conclude  thus  :  There  are 
Psalms  in  the  Psalter  of  which,  if  we  may  remove  certain 
parts  as  later  interpolations,  a  residuum  remains  of  which 
it  would  be  unjustifiable  to  assert  that  it  was  not  written 
by  David. 

But  if  we  cannot  determine  the  authors  of  the  Psalms, 
nor  the  'particular  occasions  out  of  which  they  sprang, 
we  may  yet  ask,  and  ought  to  ask,  What  type  of  persons 
wrote  them,  what  type  of  experiences  do  they  embody, 
with  what  type  of  subject  do  they  deal  ?  In  order  to 
answer  this  question  it  will  be  necessary  to  discuss  briefly 
an  important  principle  of  interpretation. 

A  considerable  proportion  of  the  Psalms  describe  from 
the  writer's  standpoint  the  experiences  or  aspirations  or 
the  religious  faith  of  the  nation  or  of  the  religious  com- 
munity— whether  this  community  be  co-extensive  with  the 
nation  or  a  group  or  party  within  it.  The  Psalms  which 
most  obviously  belong  to  this  class  are  those  in  which  the 
pronoun  of  the  first  person  plural  is  used.  These  are 
some  twenty-seven  in  number.^  In  another  group  of 
twenty-five  Psalms  ^  the  personal  pronoun  is  sometimes 
in  the  first  singular,  sometimes  in  the  first  plural ;  this 
interchange  is  not  perhaps  to  be  always  accounted  for  in 
the  same  way  ;  but  in  some  of  these  Psalms  it  is  obviously 
the  main  purpose  of  the  writer  to  describe  the  experiences 
of  the  nation  (cf.,  c.gr.,  Pss.  xliv.,  Ixxiv.,  Ixxviii.).  Another 
group  of  Psalms,  not  so  easily  defined  as  the  two  preceding, 
but  including  some  twenty-two  Psalms  at  least,^  is  as 
little  limited  to  individual  experience  as  the  first  group : 

1  See  Pss.  xxi,  xxxiii.,  xlvi.,  xlrii.,  xlviii.,  1.,  Ix.  (both  tt.  1-4  and  6-12= 
cTiii.  6-13),  Ixv.  (in  v.  3a  Vulg.  and  LXX.  read  'us'  for  'me'),  Ixvii.,  Ixxix., 
Ixxx.,  Ixxxi.,  xc,  xcv.,  xcviiL,  xcix.,  c,  cv.,  cxiii.,  cxr.,  cxvii.,  cxxir., 
cxxvi.,  cxxxii.,  cxxxri.,  cxliv.,  cxlvii. 

8  Viz.  Pss.  viii.  xvii.,  xxii.,  xL,  xliv.,  lix.,  Ixii.,  Ixvi.,  Ixviii.,  Ixxi., 
Ixxiv,,  Ixxv. ,  Ixxviii.,  Ixxxiv.,  Ixxxv.,  Ixxxix.,  xciv.,  ciii.,  cvi.,  cxvi.,  cxviii., 
cxxii.,  cxxxv.,  cxxxvii.,  cxli. 

'  Pss.  i.j  xii.,  xiv.  (=liii.),  xv.,  xix.  1-6,  xxiv.,  xxix.,  xxxiv.,  Ixxii.,  Ixxyi^ 
Ixxxii.,  xciii.,  xcvi.,  xcvii.,  evil.,  cxii.,  cxiv.,  cxxv.,  cxxvii.,  cxxxiii.,cxzziT., 
«zlyiii.,cxllix.,  cl. 


140  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

these  Psalms  are,  for  example,  calls  to  praise  God  for  his 
goodness  or  descriptions  of  the  character  which  is  pleasing 
to  God.  The  remainder  of  the  Psalms,  about  (yet  barely) 
half  the  whole  number,  appear  superficially,  in  contrast 
to  the  foregoing,  to  describe  the  experiences  or  aspirations 
of  some  individual.  They  are  written  in  the  first  person 
singular.  But  in  one  of  these  Psalms,  owing  to  its  peculiar 
structure,  the  Psalmist  supplies  the  interpretation  of  the 
pronoun  of  the  first  singular,  and  in  this  case  the  singular 
pronoun  refers,  not  to  an  individual,  but  to  the  nation 
(see  Ps.  cxxix.  1).  The  personification  of  the  nation  as 
an  individual  which  underlies  this  usage  unquestionably 
occurs  often  in  Hebrew  Uterature.  How  far  does  it  extend 
in  the  Psalter  ?  Is  the  much  afficted  subject  of  other 
Psalms  written  in  the  first  person  singular  an  iudividual, 
or,  hke  the  much  afflicted  subject  of  Ps.  cxxix,  Israel  ? 
For  instance,  does  the  author  of  the  words,  *  Thou  wilt  not 
abandon  my  soul  to  Sheol,  nor  suHer  thy  holy  one  to  see 
the  pit  *  (Ps.  xvi.  10),  express  the  conviction  that  he  him- 
self will  never  see  death  (for  it  is  this  and  not  resurrection 
that  the  words  imply),  or  that  Israel  will  never  cease  to 
be  ?  Does  the  author  of  Ps.  li.  make  confession  of  purely 
personal  sins  (w.  1-5),  and  look  forward  as  an  individual 
to  a  missionary  career  (Ps.  li.  13),  or,  like  the  authors  of 
La.  i.  18-22,  Is.  Ixiii.  7-lxiv.  12,  does  he,  identifying  himself 
with  his  people,  make  confession  of  national  sins  ?  It  is 
impossible  either  to  discuss  this  fully  here,  or  to  attempt 
to  determine  how  far  the  use  of  *  I  *= Israel  extends  beyond 
Ps.  cxxix.  One  other  feature  of  the  Psalms  which  super- 
ficially appear  to  describe  the  experiences  of  the  individual 
may  be  noted :  many  of  them  break  off  into  perfectly 
obvious  prayers  for  the  nation  {e.g.  Ps.  xxv.  22,  xxviii.  9), 
or  into  appeals  to  the  community  as  a  whole  to  participate 
in  the  writer's  experience  or  aspirations  (cf.,  e.g.y  Ps.  xxx. 
4,  5,  xxxii.  11).  These  departures  from  the  apparently 
individual  tenor  of  the  rest  of  the  Psalm  are  sometimes 
treated  as  glosses ;  and  they  may  be  such.  Not  all  of 
these   Psalms  need  have  the  same  origin ;    some  may 


rrv.]  THE  PSALMS  141 

have  been  originally  written  as  national  confessions,  some, 
originally  of  a  more  exclusively  individual  character,  may 
have  been  fitted  for  use  by  the  community  by  the  addition 
of  liturgical  verses  and  the  eUmination  of  what  was  too 
Umited  to  be  of  general  applicability. 

The  conclusion  to  be  drawn  even  from  this  brief  survey 
of  the  origin  of  the  Psalter  and  the  character  of  the  Psalms 
may  be  stated  thus :  The  Psalms  as  we  have  received 
them  are  sacred  poems  that  reflect  more  or  less  clearly 
the  conditions  of  the  post-exihc  Jewish  community  and 
express  its  varying  religious  feehngs  and  aspirations ;  in 
origin  some  of  these  Psalms  may  go  back  to  the  pre-exilic 
periods,  some  may  originally  have  sprung  out  of  circum- 
stances pecuUar  to  an  individual ;  but  in  consequence  of 
editing  by  the  successive  compilers  of  the  post-exilic 
hymn-books  through  which  the  Psalms  have  come  down 
to  us,  most  of  the  peculiarly  pre-exilio  or  individual 
characteristics  which  may  have  distinguished  them 
originally  have  been  largely  obliterated. 


142  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ca 


CHAPTER  XV 

PROVERBS 

Thb  book  of  Proverbs  does  not  represent  the  first  attempt 
to  collect  the  proverbial  expressions  of  Hebrew  wisdom. 
The  existence  of  more  than  one  title,  and  other  features  of 
the  book,  indicate  that  Proverbs,  Uke  the  Psalter  and  some 
of  the  prophetical  books,  contains  several  originally  inde- 
pendent works. 

The  sections  of  the  present  book  beginning  with  ch.  x. 
and  ch.  xxv.  are  introduced  with  these  titles  respectively  : 

*  The  proverbs  of  Solomon,'  '  These  also  are  the  proverbs  of 
Solomon,  which  the  men  of  Hezekiah  king  of  Judah  copied 
out.'  Whether  the  first  section  of  the  book  also  ranked  as, 
and  passed  with  the  title  of,  '  The  proverbs  of  Solomon  the 
son  of  David,  king  of  Israel,'  from  the  first,  or  whether  the 
title  in  i.  1,  together  with  the  introduction  (i.  2-6)  so  closely 
wedded  with  it,  is  the  work  of  the  compiler  of  the  present 
book  intended  to  cover  the  main  contents  of  his  work  is 
uncertain  ;  in  the  latter  case  the  compiler  opens  his  collec- 
tion with  a  previously  written  collection,  which  was, 
perhaps,  down  to  his  time  anon3rmous.     In  any  case  the 

*  Solomonic  '  element  in  Proverbs  is  large  ;  but  there  are 
also  other  elements,  viz.  *  the  words  of  Agur  the  son  of 
Jakeh'  (xxx.  1),  *the  words  of  king  Lemuel'  (xxxi.  1),  and 
the  proverbs  of  *  the  wise  '  (xxiv.  23). 

The  possibility  of  the  inclusion  of  anonymous  as  well  as 
of  titled  collections  within  our  present  book  cannot  be 
excluded ;  and  this  involves  some  uncertainty  as  to  the 
extent  of  matter  covered  by  the  several  titles  within  the 
book.    Did  the  *  words  of  Lemuel,  a  king '  include  the  whole 


XV.]  PROVERBS  143 

of  ch.  xxxi.,  or,  as  some  have  held,  only  the  opening  verses  ? 
Where  does  the  Solomonic  collection  that  begins  at  x.  1  end, 
and  that  of  the  wise  (xxiv.  23)  begin  ?  The  beginning  of 
the  collection  of  *  the  wise  '  is  commonly  sought  in  xxii.  17, 
perhaps  rightly  ;  this  collection  then  consisted  of  xxii.  17- 
xxiv.  22,  with  xxiv.  23-34  as  an  appendix.  Not  im- 
probably XXX.  7-33,  cmiously  different  in  virtue  of  the 
dominant  numerical  arrangement  from  xxx.  1-6,  and 
xxxi.  10-31,  which  as  an  alphabetic  poem  is  sharply  marked 
off  from  xxxi.  2-9,  were  anonymous.  In  any  case  we  obtain 
these  divisions,  which  for  convenience  of  reference  may 
be  denominated  A,  B,  etc. : — 

A.  Chs.  i.-ix.  (*  The  proverbs  of  Solomon,*  i.  1) :  this 

section,  urdike  most  of  the  remainder  of  the  book, 
does  not  consist  of  isolated  sayings,  but  is,  in 
the  main,  a  systematic  development  of  certain 
subjects,  all  gathered  up  under  the  general 
conception  of  wisdom  ;  cp.  especially  ch.  viii. 

B.  X.  1-xxii.  16.     *  The  proverbs  of  Solomon.'    Inde- 

pendent sayings,  or  proverbs,  each  complete  in 
two  parallel  hnes. 

C.  xxii.    17-xxiv.    22+xxiv.    23-34.     *  Of  the  wise ' 

(xxiv.  23 ;  cp.  xxii.  17).  Longer  proverbs,  often 
consisting  of  two  couplets,  one  giving  a  piece  of 
advice,  and  the  other  the  reason  for  it. 

D.  xxv.-xxix.     *  The  proverbs  of  Solomon.'    For  the 

most  part  short  sayings  as  in  B. 

E.  xxx.    '  The  words  of  Agur.'    Vv.  7-33  were,  per- 

haps, really  anonymous. 

F.  xxxi.  1-9.     *  The  words  of  Lemuel.' 

G.  xxxi.  10-31.    An  anonymous  alphabetic  poem  in 

praise  of  a  virtuous  woman. 

Thus  the  book,  except  such  parts  of  it  as  may  have  been 
intended  to  be  anonymous,  comes  before  us  as  the  work  of 
Solomon,  famous  for  his  wisdom  and  in  particular  for  the 
proverbs  which  he  spoke  (1  Kings  iv.  29-34),  and  of  two 
otherwise  entirelv  unknown  persons,  Agur  and  Lemuel 


144  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

What  is  the  value  of  these  ascriptions  of  authorship  ?  Is 
it  greater  than  that  of  the  obviously  wrong  ascription  of 
Ecclesiastes  and  Canticles  to  Solomon  ?  or  of  the  titles 
ascribing  psalms  to  David  ?  Is  the  specific  information 
in  XXV.  1  more  trustworthy  than  the  specific  information 
in  the  titles  to  Pss.  H.,  lii.,  etc.  ?  Were  Hezekiah's  copjdsts 
a  real  Hterary  guild  of  the  eighth  century,  or  a  reflection 
back  to  that  period  from  the  post-exiUc  period,  the  period  of 
the  scribes  and  the  wise,  just  as  certain  guilds  of  singers  seem 
to  have  travelled  back  from  post-exilic  times  to  the  age  of 
David  purely  in  the  imagination  of  the  Chronicler  (1  Chron. 
XXV.)  ?  The  possibility  of  answering  these  questions  rests 
on  the  degree  of  probability  and  of  closeness  with  which 
the  several  sections  of  the  book  can  be  dated. 

Nothing  is  more  difficult  to  date  than  innumerable 
independent  proverbs  or  disconnected  sayings  ;  even  if  the 
ascription  to  Solomon  be  admitted,  the  question  would 
still  arise  whether  he  first  coined  them  all,  or  whether  the 
proverbs  which  he  is  said  to  have  spoken  included  those 
which  he  had  gathered  from  tradition  and  popular  speech. 
The  ultimate  origin  of  the  individual  proverbs  must  then 
be  left  undecided  ;  in  substance  some  of  them  may  run  back 
to  a  remote  antiquity.  The  question  that  may  be  con- 
sidered is,  To  what  period  does  the  hterary  form  of  the 
collections  of  proverbs  within  our  present  book  belong  ? 
It  is  significant  that,  as  in  different  collections  of  psalms 
the  same  psalm  occurs  with  variations,  so  in  different 
collections  of  proverbs  the  same  proverb  occurs  with 
variations,  as,  for  example,  in  xii.  11  and  xxviii.  19.  Parts 
of  the  book  may  have  reached  us  in  the  form  produced  by  a 
long  period  of  poUshing,  though  the  sayings  go  back 
ultimately  to  popular  wisdom,  or  of  fresh  sayings  modelled 
on  such  popular  proverbs  but  first  coined  by  wise  men  of  a 
school  that  had  long  practised  this  particular  type  of 
hterature.  Other  parts,  such  as  the  proverbs  in  section  D, 
may  have  passed  more  immediately  from  popular  speech 
into  the  literary  form  in  which  we  have  received  them  : 
whether,  as  has  sometimes  been  argued,  the  more  popular 


XV.]  PROVERBS  145 

and  less  polished  the  form,  the  earlier  the  collection,  is  not 
quite  certain  ;  at  a  quite  late  period  fresh  relays  of  popular 
proverbs  may  have  been  committed  to  writing,  and  some 
of  those  may  have  reached  us  in  their  first  Hterary  form. 
Even  in  that  form  they  differ  from  rather  than  resemble 
the  specimens  of  Palestinian  popular  proverbs  and  sajdngs 
which  we  find  elsewhere  (1  Sam.  xxiv.  13  ;  1  Kings  xx.  11 ; 
Jer.  xxxi.  29  ;  Luke  iv.  23  ;  John  iv.  37). 

The  book  of  Proverbs  stands  closely  related^ jnvirtue  of 
its  discussion  of  Hfe  from  the  broad  human  rather  than 
the  national  standpoint,  with  certain  other  works — Job^ 
Ecclesiastes,  Ecclesiasticus,  and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon, 
to  which  we  might  add  certain  Psalms  such  as  xxxvii.  and 
xlix.  These  other  specimens  of  tEe  Wisdom  Literature, 
as  it  is  often  called,  are  one  and  aU  post-exihc  ;  is  it  probable 
that  Proverbs  is  the  sole  surviving  specimen  of  a  pre-exiUc 
'  wisdom  school '  ?  It  is  now  generally  agreed  that  the 
book  as  a  whole  is  not,  but  that  it  is,  Hke  the  other  works 
mentioned,  the  product  of  the  post-exiUc  age.  Yet  it  is 
not  clear  that  we  could  raise  by  any  means  the  same 
presumption  against  a  pre-exiKo  origin  of  some  of  the 
collections  contained  within  the  book ;  for,  after  all,  the 
popular  sayings  cited  at  the  close  of  the  last  paragraph 
are  free,  as  many  such  pithy  sayings  must  necessarily  be, 
from  anything  national,  though  some  of  them  certainly 
existed  before  the  Exile.  It  is  really  only  such  developed 
themes  as  occur  in  section  A,  that  give  strong  reason, 
merely  on  this  ground,  for  treating  them  as  of  the  same 
period  as  the  longer  works  of  the  Wisdom  Literature. 

What  possible  arguments,  then,  can  be  adduced  in  favour 
of  a  pre-exiUc  origin  for  any  section  of  the  book,  or  even 
for  any  of  the  individual  proverbs  contained  in  it  ? 

Apart  from  the  presumption  created  by  the  titles, 
especially  that  in  xxv.  1,  the  evidence  that  is  most  relied 
on  as  pointing  to  pre-exiKc  origin  is  the  mention  in 
many  passages  of  a  king  or  kings  :  this,  it  is  said,  implies 
not  indeed  that  Solomon  wrote  the  passages  in  question,  for 
they  are  written  from  the  standpoint  of  a  subject,  but  that 


146  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ca 

the  Jewish  monarchy  still  existed,  and  consequently  that 
the  sayings  that  refer  to  a  king  were  written  before  586  B.C. 
But  it  is  quite  certain  that  not  all  the  references  to  a  king 
or  kings  imply  anything  of  the  kind  :  it  is  to  the  kings  of 
the  earth,  or  to  the  king  as  an  element  in  that  wide  human 
society,  which  forms  the  sphere  of  the  wise  men's  observa- 
tion,^ that  some  of  the  passages  must,  and  many,  if  not  all 
(including  even  xvi.  10),  may  refer.  That  all  the  kings  of 
the  earth  owe  their  sovereignty  to  the  divine  wisdom  is 
quite  clearly  the  meaning  of  viii.  15.  And  with  what 
safety  can  it  be  claimed  that  the  saying,  '  The  king's 
heart  is  in  the  hand  of  the  Lord  as  the  watercourses ;  he 
tunieth  it  whithersoever  he  will '  (xxi.  1),  must  have  been 
written  when  a  Hebrew  king  was  reigning?  The  idea 
is  the  necessary  basis  for  prayers  that  God  will  favourably 
dispose  the  heart  of  foreign  kings  such  as  we  find  in  such 
post-exilic  passages  as  Neh.  i.  Again  must  xxiv.  21  have 
been  written  under  the  Jewish  monarchy,  though  Eccles. 
viii.  2,  X.  20  certainly  were  not  ?  Ben  Sirach  (c.  180  B.C.) 
writes,  *  Justify  not  thyself  in  the  presence  of  the  Lord :  and 
claim  not  understanding  before  the  king '  (Ecclus.  vii.  5) ; 
how,  then,  can  it  be  urged  that '  claim  not  for  thyself  glory 
in  the  presence  of  the  king '  (Prov.  xxv.  6)  must  have  been 
written  before  586  B.C.  ?  The  point  cannot  be  argued 
further  here,  but  the  reader  will  be  in  a  position  to  judge 
for  himself  if  he  will  compare  with  Eccles.  iv.  13-16,  v.  9, 
viii.  2-4,  X.  16, 17, 20,  Ecclus.  vii.  4  f.,  viii.  2,  x.  3  the  remain- 
ing references  to  kings  in  Proverbs :  these  are  xiv.  28,  35, 
xvi.  10,  12-15,  xix.  12,  xx.  2,  8,  26,  28,  xxii.  11,  29, 
xxv.  2-3,  5-6,  xxix.  4,  14,  xxx.  28-31,  xxxi.  3-4 ;  op.  also 
xxix.  2,  12,  26,  xxx.  22. 

The  significance  of  the  style  and  language  has  been 
differently  estimated.  H  Job  is  post-exihc,  it  cannot  safely 
be  claimed  that  any  part  of  Proverbs  must  be  pre-exilic  ;  we 
might  rather  suspect  that  nearly  the  whole  of  the  book  re- 
ceived its  present  linguistic  form  within  a  century  of  the 
composition  of  Job ;  and,  since  certain  late  features  tha* 
I  Op.  Job  iU.  14,  zU.  18,  zr.  24.  zziz.  25.  zzzIt.  18,  zxztI.  7. 


XV.J  PROVERBS  147 

are  found  in  Eccles.  and  Ecclus.  are  absent  from  Proverbs, 
some  time,  say  a  century  or  two  earlier  than  c.  180  B.C., 
the  date  of  Ecclus.  But  xxxi.  1-9  may  be  quite  late, 
if  the  text  is  correct,  for  it  uses  the  Aramaic  instead  of 
the  Hebrew  word  for  *  son,'  and  an  Aramaising  plural. 
Some  detect  a  Grecism  (etun=o^o»'r7)  in  vii.  16;  otherwise 
Greek  and  Persian  words  are  absent,  and  the  Aramaisms 
are  not  strikingly  numerous. 

In  favour  of  post-exiUc  origin,  appeal  has  been  made 
to  the  tacit  assumption  of  monotheism  (cp.  p.  125)  through- 
out the  book,  and  also  to  the  impHcation  that  polygamy, 
which,  as  the  laws  regulating  it  in  Deut.  xxi.  15-17,  Lev. 
xviii.  18  (H)  imply,  must  have  continued  customary  down 
to  the  Exile,  has  given  way  to  monogamy  with,  as  its 
dark  accompaniment,  the  increasing  practice  of  sexual 
immorality. 

The  argument  from  silence  needs  to  be  used  with  special 
caution :  the  type  of  Uterature  rather  than  the  age  of  it 
may  account  on  the  one  hand  for  the  absence  of  all  refer- 
ence to  idolatry,  a  feature  of  the  book  which  might  other- 
wise point  strongly  to  a  late  post-exiKc  date,  and  on  the 
other  for  the  absence  of  all  allusion  to  a  future  life  which 
might  suggest  an  earlier  date.  Again,  we  cannot  argue 
from  the  fact  that  Proverbs  throughout  has  much  the  same 
outlook  as  the  friends  of  Job  on  the  relation  between 
adversity  and  prosperity,  and  righteousness  and  sin,  to 
the  conclusion  that  Proverbs  is  earher  than  Job  :  for  the 
attitude  of  Job's  friends  long  persisted  and  appears,  for 
example,  also  in  Ecclus. 

In  chs.  i.-ix.  there  is  rather  more  opportunity  for  the 
development  of  special  and  characteristic  rehgious  ideas ; 
and  here  the  conception  of  wisdom  developed  in  ch.  viii. 
weighs  heavily  in  favour  of  a  post-exiUc  date,  and  indeed 
of  some  not  too  early  part  of  the  post-exiHc  period. 
Whether  we  can  treat  as  equally  significant  the  fact  that 
attention  is  specially  concentrated  here  on  city  Ufe,  to  the 
relative  disregard  of  agricultural  pursuits  and  country 
life,  is  more  doubtful :    for,  unless  we  have  already  pre 


148  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

judged  the  question  of  the  existence  before  the  Exile  of 
the  particular  class  of  wise  men  who  produced  the  Wisdom 
Literature,  it  is  pertinent  to  reflect  that,  whereas  the  lonely 
prophet  often  drew  his  inspiration  from  the  country,  the 
*  wise '  most  probably  at  all  times  congregated,  and  poUshed 
their  wits,  in  the  city. 


XTL]  ECCLEISIA^TES  140 


CHAPTER  XVI 

ECCLESIASTES 

EccLESiASTBS  is  the  last  of  the  specimens  of  the  ancient 
Hebrew  Wisdom  Literature  preserved  among  the  Canonical 
Scriptures  of  the  Jews.  In  character  it  resembles  Job 
more  than  Proverbs  ;  it  is  not,  Uke  the  latter,  a  corpus  of 
originally  distinct  collections  of  proverbs  or  Wisdom 
Literature;  but,  Uke  Job,  it  is  fundamentally  the  work 
of  a  single  writer  and  devoted  to  a  single  theme.  In 
Ecclesiastes,  as  in  Job,  if  the  work  of  more  than  one  writer 
can  be  proved,  it  is  because  the  original  work  has  been 
interpolated;  not  because,  as  in  Proverbs,  an  editor  has 
combined  different  books,  or  because,  as  in  the  historical 
books,  extracts  from  literary  sources  have  been  incor- 
porated in  a  later  narrative.  In  a  word  the  book  raises 
questions  of  integrity,  but  not  of  Hterary  sources. 

Like  Job,  Ecclesiastes  opens  with  the  statement  of  a 
certain  thesis,  discusses  it,  and  closes  ^  with  a  reaffirmation 
of  it.  In  Job  the  theme  is  the  righteousness  of  Job  :  in 
Ecclesiastes  it  is  the  emptiness  of  human  life. 

Like  Job,  Ecclesiastes  employs  two  styles — now  plain 
prose,  now  a  more  elevated  style,  if  not  also  a  distinctly 
poetical  form ;  but  in  Ecclesiastes  prose  predominates. 
More  or  less  isolated  proverbial  distichs  occur  in  several 
parts  of  the  book,  but  the  two  chief  specimens  of  sus- 
tained elevation  of  style  and  poetical  form  are  the  opening 
and  closing  passages  (i.  1-8,  xi.  1-xii.  8). 

What  was,  is  ;  what  is,  will  be  ;  between  then  and  now 
there    has,   indeed,    been    movement,    and   things   have 

1  xiL  8 :  zii.  9-14  ii  obviously  of  the  nature  of  «u  appendix  or  colophon. 


160  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [aa. 

happened ;  and  so  between  now  and  hereafter  there  will 
be  movement  and  things  will  happen :  but  it  has  been, 
and  will  be,  a  perpetual  recurrence  of  the  same  movements 
and  the  same  happenings :  it  all  issues  in  nothing  new ; 
history  is  without  meaning  or  goal,  nature  a  field  of  dreary 
repetition.     Such  is  the  drift  of  the  opening  passage. 

And  what  is  true  of  the  race  is  true  of  the  individual : 
where  he  begins,  there  he  ends  ;  from  the  dust  he  came,  to 
the  dust  he  returns,  and  the  very  spirit  of  life  within 
him  will  be  reabsorbed  ^  in  God  who  gave  it ;  and  there- 
fore with  the  individuals,  as  with  the  race  and  nature,  all 
is  emptiness,  meaningless  :  so  the  book  closes. 

It  is  curious,  but  apparently  true,  that  the  abiding 
reality  of  God,  which  he  admits,  entirely  fails  to  illuminate 
hfe  for  Ecclesiastes.  Perhaps,  he  hints,  God  may  have 
a  pm-pose ;  yet  it  is  certain  that  the  knowledge  of  that 
purpose  is  withdrawn  from  man  by  l^e  fixed  determination 
of  God  himself  (iii.  9,  viii.  17,  xi.  6).  Yet  certain  facts  of 
Hfe  are  obvious  :  for  example,  Ecclesiastes  sees  as  clearly, 
though  far  more  coldly,  than  Job,  that  the  old  traditional 
explanation  of  life  is  false,  and  that  as  a  matter  of  fact 
the  righteous  cannot  reckon  on  faring  better  than  the 
imrighteous  (vii.  16,  viii.  14,  ix.  2,  11,  12)  ;  righteous  and 
unrighteous  aUke  may  be  swept  brutally  and  untimely 
out  of  life  with  as  Uttle  discrimination  as  fishes  are  caught 
in  a  net.  And  those  who  escape  an  untimely  end  are 
inevitably  moving  on  to  the  coldness  and  darkness  of  old 
age,  and  then  to  die  Uke  the  beasts  ;  no  life  to  come  gives 
meaning  to  the  life  that  is  (ch.  xii.). 

From  this  diagnosis  of  hfe  follow  certain  practical  rules 
ior  those  who  would  make  the  best  of  a  bad  matter,  and 
primarily  this — to  get  the  most  out  of  the  present  moment, 
mindful  only  that  excess  exacts  a  retribution  (ii.  24  f.). 

Such,  briefly  summarised,  are  the  dominant  ideas  of  the 
book,  which  are  illustrated  with  much  fullness  from  the 
assumed  experience  and  actual  observation  of  the  writer. 

But  ideas  that  conflict  with  these  are  also  found  iu  the 
>  Even  M  tbfti  of  beasts :  od.  Pi.  oir.  29. 


XVL]  ECCLESIASTES  161 

book  :  the  righteous  and  unrighteous  are  not  in  like  case 
(viii.  11-13),  for  judgment,  complete  in  its  survey,  unerring 
in  its  decisions,  awaits  all  men :  *  God  shall  judge  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked '  (iii.  17,  cp.  xi.  96,  xii.  14). 
The  true  practical  rule  of  life  is  not  to  seize  the  present 
moment  in  order  to  eat,  drink,  and  be  merry,  but  to  fear 
God  and  to  keep  his  commandments  (xii.  13,  cp.  xii.  1). 

In  Job  also  there  is  a  sharp  conflict  of  ideas,  but  for  the 
most  part  in  that  book,  even  as  it  now  stands,  the  conflict 
is  immediately  explained  by  the  form  of  the  book ; 
different  and  opposed  ideas  are  championed  by  different 
people.  There  is  no  hint  in  Ecclesiastes  that  two  or  more 
different  persons  are  discussing  Ufe,  and  presenting  opposed 
interpretations  of  it.  It  has,  however,  been  suggested 
that  the  book  represents  an  inner  conflict,  the  struggle 
within  the  same  man  between  a  lower  and  a  nobler  self. 
Unfortunately  there  is  not  the  slightest  indication  of  this 
apart  from  the  inconsistencies  themselves  ;  and,  remark- 
ably enough,  if  this  were  the  true  explanation,  the  nobler 
self  is  allowed  much  less  opportunity  of  enforcing  its  view 
of  hfe.  It  is  true  the  book  finishes  on  the  higher  note ; 
but  then  xii.  9-14  reads  too  much  Hke  an  appendix,  and 
says  nothing  whatever  that  really  meets,  in  such  a  way 
as  we  should  expect  in  a  real  debate  even  of  the  two  selves, 
what  has  gone  before  ;  it  records,  speaking  of  him  in  the 
third  person,  Ecclesiastes*  methods  of  study  and  instruction, 
deprecates  the  multiplying  of  books,  and  closes  with  the 
true  end  of  life  and  the  certainty  of  judgment  to  come ; 
but  none  of  this  is  brought  into  any  relation  with  the 
complaint  that  life  moves  on  to  old  age,  and  to  the  darkness 
of  nothingness  that  follows  it. 

It  becomes,  then,  almost  impossible  to  avoid  the  con- 
clusion that  the  book  has  been  interpolated  in  places  by 
one  or  more  pious  scribes  who  endeavoured  to  correct  and 
quahfy  the  tendency  of  the  original  work.  When  we 
recall  the  fact  that  Ecclesiastes  had  no  small  difficulty 
in  finding  its  way  into  the  Canon,  we  may  believe  that  a 
book    which,    perhaps    on    the    ground    of    its    assumed 


152  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

Solomonic  authorship,  made  good  its  claim  to  con- 
sideration was  in  some  measm^  corrected  in  the  interests 
of  edification.  A  few  other  verses  of  the  book  may  be 
due  to  the  same  pious  scribe. 

Another  type  of  interpolations  has  been  suspected, 
though  on  less  strong  grounds ;  it  is  claimed  that  the 
isolated  proverbial  hues  or  couplets  which  occur  in  iv.  5, 
9-12,  vii.  4-6,  7-12,  19 ;  x.  1-3,  8-14a,  and  m  a  few  other 
places,  interrupt  the  main  argument,  and  are  distinguished 
by  their  frigidity  from  the  main  work.  It  has  been  sug- 
gested that  these,  together  with  xii.  11  f.,  were  inserted  by 
one  of  *  the  wise  '  (xii.  11). 

The  title  (i.  1)  is  probably  enough  editorial,  and  possibly 
also  xii.  9  f. 

The  transparent  disguise  of  the  writer,  who  would  pass 
as  the  pre-eminently  wise  (i.  16)  Jewish  king,  (i.  12),  by 
whom,  of  course,  Solomon  (i.  1)  is  intended,  was  sufficient 
to  secure,  though  whether  in  accordance  with  the  writer's 
wish  we  cannot  say,  a  misunderstanding  of  the  book  for 
many  centuries.  Luther,  however,  broke  away  from 
what  had  become  the  tradition  that  Solomon  was  the 
actual,  and  not  merely  the  assumed  author,  of  Ecclesiastes  ; 
and  the  tradition  now  scarcely  finds  defenders. 

The  author  was  apparently  so  careless  of  his  disguise  as 
to  imply  that  many  generations  of  Jews,  and  not  David's 
only,  had  preceded  him  in  Jerusalem  (i.  16,  ii.  9)  ; 
and,  again,  he  so  far  disregards  his  disguise  as  to  write 
frequently  not  from  the  standpoint  of  the  ruler,  but  from 
that  of  the  subject,  stung  to  the  quick  (iii.  16,  iv.  1)  by  the 
iniquities  of  the  pohtical  system  under  which  he  fives,  with 
its  many  grades  of  subordinate  officials  under  the  highest 
authority  of  all  (v.  8).  So  far  from  being  the  illustrious 
king  of  an  independent  people,  with  Jerusalem  as  his 
capital,  the  author  is  a  subject  fiving  in  a  province  of  a 
great  empire,  rendered  bitter  by  constant  observation  of 
wrong  and  injustice,  which  has  led  him  to  be  surprised  at 
nothing  the  official  system  may  perpetrate,  and  rendered 
cautiouB  or  ready  to  caution  others  against  the  ubiquitous 


XVI.]  ECCLESIASTES  163 

spy  (x.  20).  The  political  and  social  conditions  of  the 
writer's  time  are  clearly  enough  those  of  a  province  under 
the  Persian  Empire  (637-332),  or  under  the  Greek  dominion 
that  succeeded  it. 

So,  also,  Ecclesiastes  makes  apparently  no  attempt  to 
accommodate  his  style  to  classical  Hebrew.  Most  of  the 
late  writers,  including  Ben  Sirach,  wrote  greatly  under  the 
influence  of  the  earUer  hterature,  and  probably  with  a 
more  or  less  deUberate  intention  of  imitating  it.  Ecclesi- 
astes writes  Hebrew,  not  Aramaic,  and  with  that  he  seems 
to  have  been  content ;  he  freely  accepts  the  change  from 
the  old  to  the  new,  and  in  some  respects  perhaps  gains 
thereby ;  his  is  less  an  ineffective  imitation  of  an  older 
model  than  a  transitional  style,  not  without  considerable 
vigour  of  its  own,  to  the  Hebrew  of  the  Mishnah.  Ara- 
maisms  abound,  and  words  or  meanings  that  only  reappear 
in  the  Mishnah ;  certain  old  syntactical  usages  disappear, 
while  the  syntax  of  the  Mishnah  is  in  certain  respects 
anticipated.  Persian  words  and  possibly y  as  some  have 
supposed,  though  this  is  really  very  much  open  to  question, 
Grecisms  occur.  On  the  ground  of  language  alone  it 
must  be  held  that  the  book  was  written  at  the  earliest 
in  the  fourth  century  B.C.,  and  more  probably  at  least  a 
century  or  two  later. 

A  downward  limit  of  date  is  obtained  if  the  opinion, 
which  has  gained  ground  of  late,  that  Ben  Sirach  was 
familiar  with  Ecclesiastes  is  correct.  Ecclesiastes  was, 
in  that  case,  written  before  180  B.C.,  say  about  200  B.C. 
The  similarities  both  of  language  and  thought  between 
Ecclesiastes  and  Ecclesiasticus  are  certainly  numerous ; 
the  only  question  is  whether  the  dependence  is  unmis- 
takably on  the  part  of  Ben  Sirach.  On  the  one  hand,  it 
has  been  urged  that  Ben  Sirach  was,  both  on  the  express 
testimony  of  his  grandson  and  the  internal  evidence  of  his 
book,  an  imitator  of  earUer  writers ;  while  Ecclesiastes, 
though  not  unfamiliar  with  the  Scriptiu'es  to  which  he 
makes  some  very  definite  allusions  (e.gr.  in  xii.  7),  was  a 
very  independent  stylist.    On  the  other  hand,  it  might 


154  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTIGN  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [cb. 

be  urged  that  the  marks  of  lateness  in  Ecclesiastes  are  more 
numerous  and  conspicuous  than  in  the  Hebrew  of  Ben 
Sirach ;  but  this  fact  can  also  be  accounted  for  by  the 
difference  between  an  imitative  and  an  independent  writer 
of  the  same  age. 

Attempts  to  date  the  book  more  closely  by  interpreta- 
tions of  what  may  be  a  reference  to  specific  contemporary 
events  in  iv.  13-16  have  proved  unsuccessful. 


*vii.J  THE  SONG  OF  SONGS  U6 


CHAPTER  XVn 

THE  SONG  OF  SONGS 

The  title  (i.  1)  ascribes  this  book  to  Solomon ;  it  is  *  the 
song  of  the  songs/  t.e.  the  best  of  the  songs,  for  which 
Solomon  was  famous  (1  Kings  iv.  32).  But  this  title, 
which  uses  a  form  of  the  relative  pronoun  never  used  in  the 
book  itself,  was  scarcely  prefixed  by  the  author ;  it  is 
rather  the  mistaken  inference  of  a  scribe  or  editor,  from 
the  fact  that  Solomon  is  the  most  famous  person  mentioned 
in  the  book ;  similar  mistaken  inferences  seem  to  have 
been  responsible  for  the  ascription  in  the  title  to  it  of 
Ps.  cxxii.  to  David,  and  of  the  ascription  in  the  Talmud 
(p.  6)  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  to  Joshua.  The  Song  of 
Songs  was  written  neither  by  Solomon  nor  in  the  age  of 
Solomon. 

The  author  of  the  title  treated  the  book  as  a  single  poem 
and  so  have  most  of  those  who  have  discussed  it  since. 
The  book  must  have  owed  its  admission  to  the  Canon  to 
the  fact  that  it  had  come  to  be  treated  as  throughout  an 
allegory ;  and  this  view  of  it  dominated  both  Jewish  and 
Christian  interpretation  down  to  the  seventeenth  century, 
since  when,  at  least  among  Protestants,  it  has  become 
increasingly  less  influential  and  now  scarcely  finds  whole- 
hearted defenders.  Even  in  the  second  century  a.d., 
however,  we  find  evidence  that  points  to  a  very  different 
though  a  severely  condemned  conception :  R.  Akiba 
declares  that  those  who  trill  parts  of  the  book  in  taverns 
and  treat  it  as  a  mere  profane  song  have  no  portion  in  the 
world  to  come.    Even  at  the  Reformation  attempts  to 


166  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ca 

break  free  from  the  traditional  type  of  interpretation  were 
also  visited  with  pains  and  penalties ;  for  treating  the 
Song  as  an  erotic  poem  the  humanist  and  evangelical 
scholar  CasteUio  was  compelled  by  Calvin  to  vacate  his 
position  at  Geneva. 

To  one  important  feature  of  the  book  even  the  allegorical 
interpretation  did  justice :  it  recognised  the  element  of 
dialogue ;  but  then,  according  to  the  religious  standpoint 
and  the  ingenuity  of  the  interpreter,  the  book  was  treated 
as  the  conversation  exchanged  between  Yahweh  and  his 
people,  Christ  and  the  Church,  Christ  and  the  individual 
soul,  and  so  forth. 

Setting  aside,  or  at  least  subordinating,  the  allegorical 
interpretation,  most  modem  commentators  have  concluded 
that  the  book  is  a  drama,  the  subject  being  the  love 
between  man  and  woman.  This  theory  of  the  book  has 
been  elaborated  along  two  main  Unes.  According  to  some 
there  are  only  two  chief  persons  of  the  drama,  Solomon 
and  a  country  maiden  (Shulamith).  DeUtzsch,  who 
adopted  this  view,  regarded  the  drama  as  consisting  of 
six  acts,  each  divided  into  two  scenes.  *  The  first  act 
(i.  2-ii.  7)  is  played  both  in  the  dining-room  and  in  the 
wine-room  appertaining  to  the  women  of  the  royal  palace. 
In  the  second  act  (ii.  8-iii.  6),  Shulamith  is  again  at  home. 
In  the  third  act  (iii.  6- v.  1),  which  represents  the  marriage, 
the  bride  makes  her  entrance  into  Jerusalem  from  the 
wilderness,  and  what  we  further  then  hear  occurs  during 
the  marriage  festival.  The  locaUty  of  the  fourth  act 
(v.  2-vi.  9)  is  Jerusalem,  without  being  more  particularly 
defined.  That  of  the  fifth  act  (vi.  10-viii.  4)  is  the  park 
of  Etam,  and  then  Solomon's  country  house  there.  And 
in  the  sixth  act  (viii.  6-14)  we  see  the  newly-married  pair 
first  in  the  way  to  Shulem,  and  then  in  Shulamith's 
parental  home.  In  the  first  half  of  the  dramatic  pictures, 
Shulamith  rises  to  an  equality  with  Solomon ;  in  the  second 
half,  Solomon  descends  to  an  equality  with  Shulamith. 
At  the  close  of  the  first,  Shulamith  is  at  home  in  the  king's 
palace ;  at  th^  close  of  the  second,  Solomon  is  at  home  with 


xvn.]  THE  SONG  OF  SONGS  167 

her  in  her  Galilean  home.*  ^  On  this  theory  the  dramatic 
movement  is  slight  and  free  from  compUcation,  and  the 
course  of  true  love  runs  quite  smoothly  up  to  the  marriage, 
which  is  assumed  to  take  place  between  Acts  iii.  and  iv. ; 
thereafter  a  temporary  estrangement  is  assumed  to  have 
occurred ;  but  a  dream  which  the  bride  relates  to  the 
ladies  of  the  court  (v.  2-8)  leads  her  to  repentance,  and 
with  Solomon's  entrance  (vi.  4-9)  all  becomes  happy  again. 

The  more  elaborate  dramatic  theory  developed  by 
Ewald  finds  three  chief  characters  and  a  plot  of  greater 
complexity.  On  this  theory  the  country  maiden,  who  has 
already  plighted  her  troth  to  a  country  lover,  is  surprised 
by  Solomon  on  a  progress  through  GaUlee,  and  taken  off  by 
him  to  Jerusalem,  where,  however,  he  woos  her  in  vain ; 
she  is  true  to  her  first  love,  and  all  ends  happily,  the  last 
act  bringing  before  us  the  lovers  hand  in  hand,  and  the 
Shulamite  obKging  her  lover  (viii.  13)  by  singing  a  song 
(viii.  14). 

The  stage  directions  which  are  demanded  by  this  theory, 
and  have  to  be  suppHed  by  the  interpreter,  are  numerous. 
A  specimen  must  sujBfice  :  Ewald  divided  the  drama  into 
thirteen  scenes  divided  among  five  acts ;  the  first  act 
(i.  2-ii.  7),  as  stated  by  Dr.  Driver  in  his  presentation  of 
Ewald's  theory,  is  as  follows  : — 

*  Scene  1  {The  Shulamite  and  Ladies  of  the  Court),  The 
Shulamite,  i.  2-7  (longing  for  the  caresses  of  her  absent 
shepherd-lover,  complaining  that  she  is  detained  in  the 
royal  palace  against  her  will,  and  inquiring  eagerly  where 
he  may  be  found).  The  ladies  of  the  Court,  i.  8  (in  reply — 
ironically). 

'Scene  2  {Solomon  enters), — Solomon,  i.  9-11  (seeking  to 
win  the  Shulamite's  love).  The  Shulamite,  i.  12  {aside),  13, 
14  (parrying  the  king's  compHments  with  reminiscences  of 
her  absent  lover).  Solomon,  i.  15.  The  Shulamite  {aside) ^ 
i.  16-ii.  1  (taking  no  notice  of  the  king's  remark  in  v.  15,  and 
applying  the  figmres  suggested  by  it  to  her  shepherd-lover). 

1  Franz  Delitzsch,  Comm.  on  the  Song  of  Songs  (English  translation, 
Ekiinburgh,  1877).  p.  11.  ^     ^     »  -i 


158  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

Solomon,  ii.  2. — The  Shulamite  (aside)  y  ii.  3-7  (applying 
similarly  to  her  lover  the  comparison  suggested  by  v.  2. 
La  V.  5  f .  she  sinks  down  in  a  fit  of  half-delirious  sickness  ; 
in  V.  7  she  reminds  the  ladies  of  the  Court  that  love  is  an 
affection  which  arises  spontaneously,  and  entreats  them 
not  to  excite  it  artificially  in  Solomon's  favour).' 

The  directions  for  the  remaining  scenes  are  not  less 
elaborate ;  and  a  later  variation  of  this  theory  has  still 
further  compHcated  matters  by  discovering  an  intermezzo  in 
which,  in  addition  to  the  country  lovers  of  the  main  play, 
there  appears  another  pair  of  country  lovers  distinguished 
from  the  first  by  the  fact  that  the  maiden  is  a  shepherdess 
(not  a  vineyard-keeper)  and  her  marriage  with  her  lover 
more  imminent  (i.  7  f.,  15-17,  iv.  8-v.  1). 

The  simpler  two-character  theory  has  been  criticised 
probably  beyond  recovery :  the  three-character  theory 
still  has  many  supporters.  The  main  question  is  whether 
the  httle  drama,  in  some  respects  very  charming,  con- 
structed by  Ewald,  was  constructed  by  him  out  of  the 
text,  or  simply  read  by  him  into  the  text.  Under  the 
guise  of  stage  instructions  has  he  not  actually  supplied  a 
modern  Targum,  which  as  completely  transforms  and 
misrepresents  an  ancient  piece  of  hterature  as  Jewish 
Targums  which  turned  it  into  a  history  of  Israel,  or  Christian 
commentaries  that  made  it  relate  the  history  of  the  Incarna- 
tion ?  We  might  find  minor  causes  for  scepticism  in  regard 
to  this  theory  in  the  degree,  httle,  if  at  aU,  short  of  absurd- 
ity, to  which  the  use  of  the  theatrical  aside  is  postulated  in 
Act  i.,  scene  2  (see  above),  and  many  details  which  cannot 
here  be  discussed. 

If  the  Song  of  Songs  actually  is  the  sole  surviving 
specimen  of  ancient  Semitic  drama,  it  is  singularly  un- 
fortunate that  its  author  failed  to  supply,  or  scribes  excused 
themselves  from  the  trouble  of  copying,  the  very  necessary 
stage  directions. 

The  allegorical  and  the  two-character  dramatic  theories 
of  the  poem  rightly  detected  dialogue  in  the  book  ;  the 
three-charactei  theory  rightly  discerned  that  we  are  not 


xvn.]  THE  SONG  OF  SONGS  16i» 

throughout  witnessing  only  the  courtship  of  a  country 
maiden  by  a  king,  but  also  the  affection  of  two  country 
lovers  ripening  into  marriage ;  the  intermezzo  theory  is 
probably  right  in  recognising  that  the  theme  of  two  country 
lovers  is  handled  more  than  once,  and  only  wrong  in  not 
recognising  that  this  additional  complication  really 
strained  the  dramatic  theory  to  the  breaking-point.  That 
we  already  reach  the  actual  marriage  of  a  pair  as  early  in 
the  book  as  ii.  6  is  not  admitted  by  the  dramatic  theories, 
but  is  nevertheless  probably  the  fact,  and  a  fact  that 
works  havoc  with  those  theories. 

Another  theory  of  the  book  then  is  required,  and  has 
found  occasional  advocates  since  Herder  in  the  eighteenth 
century ;  but  it  has  been  elaborated  afresh  by  Budde  on 
the  basis  of  Wetzstein's  observations  of  modem  Syrian  life 
and  its  bearing  on  the  Song  of  Songs.  According  to  this 
theory  the  book  consists  of  a  number  of  different  poems  or 
poetical  fragments,  all  aUke  having  as  their  subject  court- 
ship, marriage,  and  its  attendant  ceremonies,  and  the 
beauty  of  bride  and  bridegroom.  Instead  of  having  to 
postulate  the  negligence  of  a  dramatist  in  supplying  no 
stage  directions,  or  of  a  scribe  in  omitting  them,  all  that 
this  theory  needs  to  postulate  is  that  different  love-poems 
have  been  written  continuously  without  marks  of  dis- 
tinction, just  as  different  Psalms  and  different  prophetic 
poems  have  almost  certainly  received  similar  treatment  at 
the  hands  of  original  editors,  or  of  some  of  those  who  have 
transmitted  the  text  (cp.  pp.  159). 

What  lends  great  probabiUty  to  this  theory  is  that 
modem  Syrian  custom  explains  the  character  of,  and  even 
offers  parallels  to,  the  several  poems.  *  The  happiest  period 
in  the  life  of  the  Syrian  countryman  is  the  first  seven  days 
after  his  wedding,  during  which  he  and  his  young  wife  play 
the  part  of  king  and  queen,  being  treated  as  such  by  their 
own  and  any  neighbouring  communities  who  may  be 
invited.  The  majority  of  the  more  important  village 
weddings  take  place  in  the  month  of  March,  the  most 
delightful    of    the    Syrian    year  .  .  .  consequently    tht 


160  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch, 

"weddings  are  celebrated  in  the  open  on  the  village  thi-eshing 
floor '  where  a  throne  is  erected  to  the  singing  of  a  song  that 
treats  of  war  or  love,  and  mostly  both  together.  The  bridal 
pair  being  seated  on  the  throne,  a  great  dance  in  their  honour 
takes  place,  '  the  accompanying  song  is  devoted  entirely 
to  them,  its  chief  contents  consisting  of  the  inevitable 
wasf,  I.e.  a  description  of  the  bodily  perfection  of  both,  and 
of  their  ornaments.  Naturally,  the  praise  of  the  queen  is 
fuller;  and  naturally,  too,  it  deals  more  with  her  visible  than 
her  concealed  charms,  for  to-day  she  is  a  wife,  and,  more- 
over, the  wasf  sung  yesterday  during  her  sword  dance 
left  nothing  to  be  desired.  .  .  .  With  this  dance  begin  the 
games  which  last  seven  days.  .  .  .  During  the  whole  week 
their  two  majesties  are  dressed  in  wedding  attire,  and  are 
not  allowed  to  do  anything  or  attend  to  any  business,  but 
all  they  have  to  do  is  to  watch  the  games  played  before 
them.'  1 

It  is  suggested  that  the  Song  of  Songs  includes  in  iv.-vii. 
specimens  of  the  descriptions  of  bride  and  bridegroom  sung 
at  ancient  Hebrew  country  weddings  and  corresponding 
to  the  loasf  of  the  modem  Syrian  wedding  celebrations 
In  iv.  1-7,  of  which  vi.  4-7  may  be  regarded  as  a  fragmentary 
duplicate,  we  have  the  description  of  the  visible  charms  of 
the  newly  married  wife,  in  vi.  10-vii.  6  the  less  restrained 
description  of  the  bride  as  she  danced  on  the  wedding  day, 
and  in  v.  2-16  the  description  of  the  bridegroom.  Again, 
iii.  6-11  may  well  be  the  song  sung  as  the  throne  is  brought 
on  to  the  threshing  floor,  the  bridegroom  playing  here  the 
r6le  not  merely  of  any  king,  but  of  the  famous  and  glorious 
King  Solomon. 

The  remainder  of  the  book  containing  other  songs  sung, 
some  of  them,  later  in  the  wedding  week,  as  e.g.  ii.  4-7, 
which  celebrates  the  nuptial  night ;  or  representing  the 
admiration  of  the  bride  for  the  bridegroom,  or  of  the  bride- 
groom for  the  bride.  In  some  of  these  songs  there  is  dia« 
logue  :  so  clearly,  c.gr.,  even  in  short  poems  Uke  i.  7-8, 16-17, 

1  The  paragraph  is  based  on  Btidrle,  Das  Hohelied,  pp.  zrii,  zriii ;  tht 
words  in  invert^  commas  are  a  translation  of  Wetzstein's. 


xvn.]  THE  SONG  OF  SONGS  161 

ii.  1-3  ;  but  the  opening  poem,  i.  2-4,  may  owe  its  present 
appearance  of  dialogue  to  textual  corruption,  and  origin- 
ally have  represented  entirely  the  speech  of  the  bride  con- 
gratulating herself  on  being  alone  the  happy  possessor  of 
the  bridegroom,  '  the  king,'  who  had  won  the  hearts  of  aU 
her  mates  by  his  charms.  Other  separate  poems  are 
ii.  8-14  (love  in  springtime),  iii.  1-5  (the  maiden's  dream), 
viii.  1-2,  (5-)6-7  (love  invincible),  viii.  8-10  (the  child 
becomes  the  mature  maiden). 

If  the  Song  of  Songs  is  thus  rightly  explained,  it  is 
essentially  folk-poetry,  a  collection  of  the  wedding  songs 
that  were  sung  in  some  Hebrew  village.  Similar  songs 
were  doubtless  in  use  throughout  the  country ;    but  the 

recurrence  of  certain  peculiarities  of  phrase  suggests  that 

we  have  rather  the  poems  of  a  single  locahty  than  a^ 

miscellaneous  collection  from  the  country  at  large.  From 
the  address  to  the  daughters,  i.e.  the  women,  of  Jerusalem 
in  several  passages,  it  may  perhaps  be  inferred  that  the 
locahty  of  the  poems  was  some  village  near  Jerusalem^'^ 
From  mere  references  to  places  it  seems  hazardous  to  draw 
conclusions,  for  the  places  mentioned  are  widely  distri- 
buted :  e.g,  Engedi,  David's  tower  (in  Jerusalem)  belong 
to  the  South,  Carmel  and  Sharon  to  the  West,  Hermon 
and  Lebanon  to  the  North,  Gilead  and  Heshbon  to  the 
East.  Yet  on  the  groimd  of  the  frequent  references  to 
Lebanon  it  has  commonly  been  held  by  upholders  of  the 
dramatic  theory  that  the  book  is  of  North  Palestinian 
origin. 

In  folk-poetry  of  this  kind  we  need  not  expect,  and  in 
the  Song  we  certainly  do  not  find,  any  clear  allusions  to 
contemporary  history.  The  age  of  David  and  Solomon 
seems  to  belong  to  the  distant  past :  David's  name  is 
introduced  in  connection  with  a  tower  in  Jerusalem, 
Solomon  as  typical  of  kingly  splendour  and  luxury.  An 
air  of  serenity,  peace  and  happiness  breathes  through  the 
book  ;  but  it  would  be  hazardous  to  argue  from  this  that 
the  book  must  have  been  written  in  days  of  national 
independence  and  success,  for  it  would  be  a  bold  assertion 

L 


162  CRITICAL  INTRODUOTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oB. 

that  village  life  was  necessarily  harder  after  Jewish  inde- 
pendence had  been  lost  than  before  it,  under  the  Persians, 
the  Ptolemies,  or  the  Seleucids,  than  under  Solomon, 
Ahab,  Uezekiah  or  many  another  native  ruler ;  and ' 
certainly  if  the  modem  Syrian  peasant  under  Turkish 
rule  can,  as  spring  returns,  celebrate  weddings  with  seven 
days  of  sport  and  jollity,  and  pay  homage  to  the  bridal 
*  king '  and  *  queen,'  we  have  no  reason  to  beUeve  that 
such  happy  interludes  were  uncommon  in  Hebrew  villages 
during  the  centuries  of  foreign  dominion. 

The  determination  of  the  date  of  the  book  must  turn, 
then,  mainly  on  the  language.  It  is  urged  that  the  purity 
and  brightness  of  the  style  favour  an  early  origin.  But 
over  against  this  general  consideration,  which  cannot  be 
regarded  as  conclusive,  stand  certain  very  striking  details 
which  are  most  obviously  explained  by  assuming  that  the 
Song  is  a  post-exilic  work,  and  perhaps,  indeed,  was 
written  as  late  as  the  third  or  second  century  B.C.  The 
most  significant  of  these  details  is  the  use  of  the  relative 
sh'  to  the  exclusion  of  the  usual  form  "sher :  sh'  occurs 
indeed  in  the  present  text — sporadically  in  Judges,  and  in 
2  Kings  vi.  1 1 ;  otherwise  it  is  confined  to  post-exilic  literature, 
and  occurs  with  frequency  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament 
only  in  Eccles. :  in  the  Mishnah  it  is  the  regular  form  of 
the  relative.  Another  feature  pointing  to  a  late  date  is 
the  occurrence  of  foreign  words  Uke  the  Persian  pardes  in 
iv.  13,  and  appiryon,  probably  <f>optLov,  in  iii.  9.  It  is 
questionable  whether  the  alternative  theory  that  the 
Song  is  of  early  North  Palestinian  origin  would  really 
meet  the  facts,  even  if  other  grounds  (p.  161)  for  attri- 
buting the  SoDg  to  the  North  were  stronger  than  they  are. 


xinvkl  LAMENTATIONS  U3 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

LAMENTATIONS 

The  book  of  Lamentations  is  divided  into  five  chapters, 
each  containing  a  single  complete  poem.  Three  of  these 
poems  are  what  the  Hebrews  termed  kindthy  i.e,  dirges,  or 
elegies  (R.V.  lamentations).  Hebrew  elegies  were  com- 
posed either,  like  those  of  David  over  Saul  and  Jonathan 
(2  Sam.  i.  17  ff.)  and  Abner  (2  Sam.  iii.  33),  over  deceased 
individuals,  or,  like  those  in  Amos  v.  2,  Ezek.  xxvi.  17  f., 
with  reference  to  the  overthrow  of  a  nation  or  city.  In  the 
latter  class,  to  which  Lam.  i.,  ii.,  iv.  belong,  the  city  or 
nation  is  personified,  and  its  overthrow  or  destruction  cor- 
responds to  the  death  of  an  individual.  The  three  dirges 
of  the  book  of  Lamentations  refer  to  the  death  of  the 
city  of  Sion,  or  the  Jewish  nation,  i.e.  to  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar  in  586  B.C.  Lam.  iii. 
describes,  figuratively,  the  sufferings  through  which  the 
writer  in  common  with  his  fellow-Jews  (vers.  40-47)  has 
passed  in  consequence  of  the  anger  of  Yahweh  which  they 
had  provoked  by  their  sins.  Lam.  v.  is  a  prayer  of  the 
Jews  to  Yahweh  :  in  their  prayer  they  describe  the  suffer- 
ings which  have  come  upon  them  for  the  sins  of  their 
fathers  (ver.  7)  and  themselves  (ver.  16),  and  lament  that 
Yahweh*s  anger  shows  no  signs  of  abatement. 

The  three  dirges  and  also  ch.  iii.  are  acrostics ;  in  chs. 
i.  and  ii.  each  strophe  consists  of  three  long  fines,  and  the 
successive  strophes  open  with  successive  letters  of  the 
alphabet ;  in  ch.  iv.  the  strophe  is  shorter,  consisting  of 
but  two  fines,  and  again  the  successive  strophes  open  with 
thd  successive  letters  of  the  alphabet.    In  ch.  iii.  each 


161  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  ^ 

of  the  first  three  lines  begins  with  the  first  letter  of  the 
alphabet,  each  of  the  next  three  with  the  second,  and  so 
forth  ;  but  whereas  in  chs.  i.,  ii.,  iv.  the  several  alphabetic 
sections  are  also  true  strophes,  in  so  far  that  they  corre- 
spond to  well-marked  divisions  of  thought,  in  ch.  iii.  many 
of  the  sections  are  marked  ofiE  merely  by  the  alphabetic 
form;  for  example,  vers.  46-48  all  begin  with  the  sam« 
letter ;  but  whereas  ver.  48  goes  closely  with  ver.  49,  it 
is  sharply  divided  from  ver.  47,  with  which  verse  the 
prayer  begun  in  ver.  42  comes  to  an  end. 

Another  difference  marks  off  ch.  i.  from  chs.  ii.  and  iv. 
(and  also  ch.  iii.).  In  ch.  i.  the  sequence  of  the  initial 
letters  is  that  which  still  holds  in  the  modem  Hebrew 
alphabet,  but  in  chs.  ii.  and  iv.  (and  iii.)  the  seventeenth 
letter  of  that  alphabet  precedes  the  sixteenth. 

An  ancient  tradition  or  theory  ascribes  the  book  of 
Lamentations  to  Jeremiah  ;  and  this  accounts  for  the  full 
title  of  the  book  in  E.  V. — the  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah. 
This  full  title  is  ancient — certainly  as  ancient  as  the  fourth 
century  a.d.,  for  it  stands  in  the  Sinaitic  MS.  of  the 
Septuagint,  and  it  is  probably  as  ancient  as  the  second 
century  a.d.,  for  it  is  the  title  of  the  book  in  the  Syriao 
and  old  Latin  versions.  But  it  is  probably  younger  than 
the  date  of  the  Greek  version,  for  in  the  Vatican  MS. 
(fourth  century  a.d.),  which  probably  represents  on  this 
point  the  original  text  of  the  version,  and  in  many  other 
MSS.,  the  shorter  title,  Lamentations,  by  which  the  book  was 
also  known  among  the  early  Jewish  Rabbis,  is  found.  But, 
apart  from  its  title,  the  Greek  version  enables  us  to  trace 
a  pre-Christian  association  of  Lamentations  with  Jeremiah  : 
not  indeed  because  in  that  version  Lamentations  stands 
among  the  Jeremianic  hterature,  after  Jeremiah  and 
Baruch,  and  before  the  Epistle  of  Jeremy,  for  the  date 
of  that  arrangement  is  unknown,  and  the  version  of 
Lamentations  is  not  from  the  hands  of  the  translators  of 
Jeremiah,  but  because  it  contains  at  the  head  of  the 
first  chapter  this  note,  *  And  it  came  to  pass,  after  Israel 
was  led  into  captivity,  and  Jerusalem  laid  waste,  that 


xvm.]  LAMENTATIONS  165 

Jeremiah  sat  weeping,  and  composed  this  dirge  over 
Jerusalem  and  said.'  This  note  has,  indeed,  often  been 
understood  to  mean  that  Jeremiah  was  the  author  of  the 
entire  book  of  five  poems;  but  the  phrase  Wprjvrja-tv  tov 
Oprjvov  TovTov,  composed  this  dirge,  is  identical  with  that 
used  of  David's  single  elegy  over  Saul  and  Jonathan 
(2  Sam.  i.  19) ;  it  is,  therefore,  most  naturally  to  be 
understood  here  also  of  a  single  poem,  that  poem,  xmless 
the  note  has  become  misplaced,  being  the  first  dirge. 
This  early  form  of  tradition,  then,  ascribed  not  all  the  book, 
but  ch.  i.  only,  to  Jeremiah.  Possibly  the  same  form  of 
tradition  is  expressed  in  1  Chron.  xxxv.  25  (though  some 
consider  *  the  (book  of)  Lamentations '  there  mentioned  a 
different  work  from  the  canonical  book  of  that  name),  and 
in  Josephus  Ant.  x.  v.  1.  If  the  evidence  of  1  Chron.  xxxv. 
25  be  admitted,  Jeremiah  was  believed  to  be  at  least  part 
author  of  Lamentations  as  early  as  about  200  or  300  B.C., 
i.e,  about  three  or  four  centuries  after  Jeremiah's  death. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  even  the  most  ancient  form  of 
the  tradition  is  true  to  fact ;  in  other  words,  it  is  doubtful 
whether  Jeremiah  composed  any,  and  exceedingly  impro- 
bable that  he  composed  all,  of  the  poems  in  the  book. 
There  is,  it  is  true,  much  in  the  vocabulary  and  phraseology 
of  the  elegies  that  is  found  also  in  Jeremiah  ;  much,  too,  in 
the  general  tone  and  temper  of  parts  of  Jeremiah  {e.g. 
chs.  xiii.,  xiv.)  that  reappears  in  Lamentations.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  attempt  to  find  allusions  in  Lamentations 
(e.g.  in  iii.  53)  to  personal  experiences  of  the  prophet 
recorded  in  Jeremiah  rests  on  the  highly  questionable 
method  of  taking  one  or  two  statements  as  hteral  in  a  series 
of  statements  which  must  be  mostly  figurative.  As  well 
might  we  identify  the  author  with  Jonah,  over  whose  head 
water  flowed  (Jonah  ii.  3-5,  cp.  Lam.  iii.  54),  but  of  whom 
we  are  not  told  that  he  was  cast  into  a  dungeon,  as  with 
Jeremiah,  of  whom  we  are  told  (Jer.  xxxviii.  6  ff.,  cp.  Lam. 
iii.  53)  that  he  was  cast  into  a  waterless  pit,  but  not  that 
T^ater  flowed  over  his  head. 

But  it  is  the  positive  difference  between  Lamentations 


166  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [CH. 

and  Jeremiah  that  makes  the  ancient  theory  or  tradition 
of  common  authorship  doubtful.  These  differences  are 
found  both  in  the  vocabulary  and  in  the  substance  of  the 
poems.  For  example,  a  form  of  the  relative  pronoun 
{sh*^  cp.  p.  162),  never  used  by  Jeremiah  or  by  any  pre-exiUo 
Jewish  writer,  occurs  in  ii.  15, 16,  iv.  9,  v.  18  ;  and  the  term 
Adonai,  Lord,  is  used  by  itself  fourteen  times  in  chs.  i.-iii., 
though  Jeremiah  uses  it  only  in  combination  with  Yahweh. 
The  very  poems  (chs.  ii.  and  iv.)  which  read  most  Hke  the 
work  of  an  actual  eyewitness  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  and 
might,  therefore,  possibly  have  been  the  work  of  Jeremiah, 
betray  also  the  standpoint  of  a  member  of  the  *  patriotic ' 
party  whom  Jeremiah  had  denounced  and  warned  in 
vain.  Jeremiah  had  anticipated  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
{e,g,  Jer.  xxvi.  5-9),  and  that  Yahweh  would  in  this  way  turn 
into  the  enemy  of  Sion;  he  had  denounced  the  prophets 
(xxiii.  9-40)  who,  by  promising  the  people  peace,  had  done 
everything  to  prevent  the  people  being  prepared  for  the 
fall  of  the  city  ;  he  had  clearly  seen  that  the  help  promised 
by  Egypt  was  worthless  (see  e.g.  Jer.  xxxvii.  6-10) ;  nor 
could  he  ever  have  expected  the  Jewish  monarch  to  secure 
the  safety  of  the  state  (see  e.g,  Jer.  xxiv.  8-10).  On  the 
other  hand,  the  author  of  Lam.  ii.  and  iv.  writes  *  as  if  he 
had  been  among  the  dupes  of  the  prophets,'  and  *  the  fall 
of  the  monarch  and  princes,  to  whom  he  imputes  no  blame, 
he  feels  as  a  desecration ' ;  *  and  *  that  the  Lord  could 
become  the  enemy  had  startled  and  shocked  him ' ;  more- 
over, he  had  hoped  up  to  the  last  that  the  help  (of  Egypt) 
would  not  prove  vain :  see  Lam.  ii.  14,  9c  (prophets), 
ii.  6c,  9b,  iv.  20  (king  and  princes),  iv.  17  (the  expected 
help),  iv.  12  (unpreparedness  for  the  fall  of  Jerusalem). 
The  writer  may  even  have  been  one  of  those  who  shared 
Zedekiah's  flight  down  the  deep  descent  from  Jerusalem 
to  Jericho,  and  his  subsequent  capture  (2  Kings  xxv.  4  f.= 
Jer.  xxxix  4  f.,  cp.  Lam.  iv.  19) ;  and  he  was  apparently 
familiar  with  the  writings  of  Ezekiel  (692-571  B.C.). 

Setting  aside,  then,  the  traditional  authorship  of  the  book, 

i  a  A.  Smith,  Jerusalem,  ii.  272. 


xvm.J  LAMENTATIONS  167 

what  can  be  said  with  reference  to  the  origin  of  it  ?  An 
anonymous  collection  of  poems,  and  such  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible  Lamentations  is,  need  not  necessarily  be  the  work  of  a 
single  author;  and  the  differences  described  above  (pp.  163, 
164)  point,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  rather  to  diversity  than  unity 
of  authorship.  So  also  does  the  absence  in  chs.  i.,  iii.,  v.  of 
those  vivid  touches  which  have  convinced  most  (though  not 
all)  students  of  the  book  that  chs.  ii.  and  iv.  are  the  work  of 
a  man  who  had  passed  through  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  in 
588-586.  If  that  conviction  is  correct  those  two  poems 
at  least  were  written  within  some  twenty  or  thirty  years  of, 
though,  if  the  influence  of  Ezekiel  is  rightly  traced  in  them, 
not  immediately  after,  the  events  they  describe — say,  about 
570-560  B.C.  The  determination  of  the  date  of  the  remain- 
ing poems  is  more  difficult :  to  some  ch.  i.  has  seemed 
dependent  upon  and  therefore  subsequent  to  chs.  ii.  and  iv. ; 
and  it  is  not  impossible  that  ch.  iii.  belongs  to  a  much  later 
age.  The  evidence  on  which  a  decision  turns  depends 
mainly  on  a  minute  analysis  of  language  and  literary 
affinities  which  cannot  be  reproduced  here. 


168  CRITICAL  LNTRODUCIIOJ^  TO  OLD  TEiSTAMENT  [ch. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

THE  PROPHETIC  LITERATURE:    INTRODUCTORY 

The  remains  of  ancient  Hebrew  prophetic  literature  were 
preserved  by  the  Jews  in  four  collections  entitled  respec- 
tively Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  The  Twelve ;  and  these 
all  stand  together  in  the  Hebrew  Bible.  In  the  Enghsh 
Bible,  which  is  influenced  by  the  arrangement  of  the 
Septuagint,  Lamentations,  on  account  jt  the  ascription  of 
that  book  to  Jeremiah,  is  inserted  between  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel,  and  Daniel  between  Ezekiel  and  the  first  section 
of  The  Twelve.  Lamentations  has  no  prophetic  character  ; 
on  the  other  hand,  parts  of  Daniel  resemble  in  character 
parts  of  the  prophetic  books.  Lamentations  has  already 
been  considered  ;  Daniel  may  be  deferred  to  the  end. 

There  are  certain  common  features  presented,  or  common 
questions  raised,  by  all  the  prophetical  books,  and  it  will 
be  convenient  to  consider  these  in  the  present  chapter 
before  passing  to  the  detailed  consideration  of  the  separate 
books  in  the  chapters  that  follow. 

Prophets  were  primarily  not  writers,  but  speakers  ; .  and 
the  prophetical  books,  Uke  so  much  other  Hebrew  literature, 
enshrine  in  Uterary  form  what  was  in  its  origin  oral.  Not 
indeed  that  everything  in  the  four  prophetic  collections, 
or  in  Daniel,  nms  back  to  an  oral  origin ;  as  a  matter  of 
fact  it  does  not ;  but  prophecy  was  in  its  origin  something 
spoken,  and  this  in  some  measure  affects  the  hterary  form 
even  of  later  productions  of  prophetic  or  quasi-prophetio 
character  that  had  no  oral  origin. 

The  early  prophets  were  men  of  speech,  and  men  of 
action,  and  stories  gathered  round  them  which  have  preserved 


XIX.]    PROPHETIC  LITERATURE :  INTRODUCTORY       169 

for  us  some  account  both  ol  what  they  said  and  what  they 
did  ;  pre-eminent  among  such  narratives  about  the  early 
prophets  are  those  of  which  Ehjah  and  Elisha  are  the  sub- 
ject, though  it  is  well  also  to  recall  here  the  narrative  in 
2  Samuel  xii.  about  Nathan,  which  preserves  a  more 
complete  specimen  of  prophetic  speech. 

But  we  have  no  reason  to  beheve  that  these  earher 
prophets  themselves  either  wrote  down  what  they  had 
spoken,  or  took  measures  to  have  their  words  perpetuated, 
and  in  any  case  it  is  not  till  we  reach  the  eighth  century  B.C. 
that  we  find  prophets  whose  words  and  teaching  have 
formed  the  substance  of  books  that  still  exist.  It  has 
become  customary  to  speak  of  Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  Micah 
&8  the  earliest  literary  prophets  ;  yet  this  term  must  not  be 
allowed  to  become  misleading  ;  these  men,  and  in  the  next 
century  Jeremiah,  were,  Uke  the  prophets  that  had  preceded 
them,  speakers ;  their  mode  of  communication  was  still 
primarily  oral,  and  only  secondarily,  and  doubtless,  too,  only 
very  partially,  did  it  become  Hterary  also.  Least  of  all  were 
they  merely  Uterary  men,  personally  withdrawn  from  the 
circles  whom  they  sought  to  influence ;  by  spoken  word, 
but  also  often  by  their  whole  manner  of  life  they  made 
their  appeal.  And  thus  about  some  of  these  men,  as  about 
Elijah  and  Elisha,  we  have  received  narratives. 

Speaking  broadly,  then,  we  have  to  distinguish  in  the 
literature  that  passes  under  the  names  of  the  prophets 
that  have  been  mentioned  three  elements,  though  not  all 
of  these  are  present  in  all  the  books  in  question  :  we  have 
(1)  the  Uterary  form  in  which  the  speech,  or  oral  teach- 
ing, of  these  prophets  is  preserved;  (2)  autobiographical 
notices  which  some  of  these  prophets  composed ;  and  (3)  bio- 
graphical notices,  of  which  some  were  written  by  a  com- 
panion with  immediate  knowledge,  while  others  may  rather 
be  the  hterary  embodiment  of  popular  stories  that  had 
gathered  round  the  prophet. 

But  the  prophetic  Uterature  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
the  deposit  of  a  long  period  of  history,  extending  from  the 
eighth  century  down  to  at  least  the  fifth  century  B.C. ; 


170  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 

and  during  this  period  prophecy  underwent  a  change. 
It  passed  in  the  persons  of  some  at  least  of  its  exponents 
into  what  was  primarily  and  purely  a  hterary  form  of 
expression ;  much  at  least  of  Ezekiel  (e.g,  chs.  xl.-xlviii.), 
possibly  the  whole  of  the  work  of  the  Deutero-Isaiah  (xl.-lv.), 
and  certainly  apocalyptic  work  such  as  Is.  xxiv.-xxvii. 
and  the  visions  of  Daniel,  rest  on  no  previously  spoken 
word. 

It  is  unnecessary  here  to  dwell  further  either  on  the 
autobiographical  and  biographical  elements  in  the  prophetic 
books ;  or  on  those  prophetic  books  or  parts  of  books  that 
rest  on  no  oral  basis,  but  were  from  the  first  Hterary.  On 
the  other  hand,  that  large  part  of  the  books  of  Isaiah, 
Hosea,  Amos,  Micah,  Jeremiah,  Zephaniah,  probably  also  of 
Haggai,  Zechariah,  Malachi,  that  are  obviously  related  to 
the  spoken  word  of  the  prophet  calls  for  some  further 
consideration. 

A  very  sUght  examination  of  the  prophetic  books  suffices 
to  show  that  they  do  not  contain  verbatim  reports  of 
speeches  or  sermons.  In  large  part  the  prophetic  teaching 
is  preserved  in  the  form  of  poemSy  and  for  the  most  part 
these  poems  are  short.  The  problem  then  is :  How  do 
these  poems  stand  related  to  the  speech  and  teaching  of 
the  prophet  ?  Did  he  compose  poems  and  recite  them  in 
pubUc  ?  or  did  he  or  some  disciple  of  his  from  time  to  time 
enshrine  the  substance  of  the  prophet's  teaching  in  short 
poems  ?  Such  short  poems,  even  though  they  were 
committed  to  writing,  could  and  would  continue  to  be 
learnt,  for  the  circulation  even  of  small  books  (or  rolls) 
was  scarcely  large. 

Though  on  certain  occasions,  taking  a  hint  from  the 
professional  singers  or  reciters  who,  as  Num.  xxi.  27  sug- 
gests, recited  existing  poems,  the  prophet  too  may  have 
recited  in  public  such  poems,  perhaps,  as  Isaiah's  parable  of 
the  vineyard,  which  he  had  previously  composed,  the 
greater  number  of  the  prophetic  poems  are  more  probably 
the  subsequent  artistic  expression  of  thoughts  and  ideas 
that    had    formed    the    tenor    of    the    prophet's    publio 


SIX.]    PROPHETIC  LITERATURE :  INTRODUCTORY      171 

utterances.  This  may  account  for  the  comparative  absence 
of  detailed  allusions  or  applications  of  the  prophetic 
teaching  in  the  poems ;  and  this  in  turn  may  explain  why 
it  is  often  a  very  difficult  and  uncertain  task  to  determine 
the  chronological  order  either  of  prophecies  in  general, 
or  of  the  prophecies  of  a  particular  prophet.  In  his  actual 
speech  the  prophet  doubtless  often  pointed  his  teaching 
by  reference  to  passing  events,  and  details  of  the  moment ; 
in  the  poems,  which  at  once  condensed  and  perpetuated 
his  teaching,  such  details  tended  to  disappear. 

The  composition  of  some  of  these  prophetic  poems  may 
have  been  virtually  simultaneous  with  the  committing  of 
them  to  writing.  On  the  other  hand,  these  two  processes 
may  often  have  been  separated  from  one  another  by  a 
considerable  interval,  so  that  there  were  three  well-defiied 
stages  before  prophetic  speech  issued  in  a  book,  viz. :  (1) 
the  pubHc  utterance  of  the  prophet,  or  his  instruction 
more  privately  communicated  to  a  circle  of  disciples ; 
(2)  the  reduction  of  the  substance  of  this  teaching  to  poetic 
form ;  (3)  the  committing  of  the  poems  to  writing,  with  any 
alterations,  additions  or  explanations  that  may  have  seemed 
advisable. 

The  books  of  Isaiah  and  Habakkuk  give  one  or  two 
hints,  the  book  of  Jeremiah  a  fuller  account  of  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which,  and  the  manner  in  which,  a 
prophet  actually  committed  his  teaching  to  writing.  The 
earliest  record  that  a  prophet  received  a  command  from 
Yahweh  not,  as  was  usually  the  case,  to  speak  {e.g.  Amos 
vii.  16,  Is.  vi.  9,  Jer.  vii.  2),  but  to  write,  is  in  Is.  viii.  1  : 
here  Isaiah  records  that  he  was  bidden  (shortly  before 
732  B.C.)  to  write  on  a  great  tablet  a  single  ominous  name — 
Maher-shalal-hash-baz,  and  to  have  the  inscription  attested 
by  witnesses.  Of  tablets  inscribed  with  some  word  or 
words  of  prophetic  teaching  we  also  read  in  Hab.  ii.  2-4 : 
Write  the  vision  (i.e.  the  prophecy),  and  make  it  plain 
upon  tablets,  that  he  that  readeth  it  may  run  {i.e.  read 
it  fluently).  Even  this  inscription,  though  longer  than 
the  previous  one,  probably  consisted  of  one  great  saying 


172   CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

only,  which  ran  (adopting  a  probable  emendation),  *  Behold, 
as  for  the  unrighteous,  his  s  ul  is  not  3ven  within  him  ;  but 
the  righteous  shall  live  by  Lis  faitiiiulness.'  The  written 
word  here  is  a  word  of  assv^-ance  for  the  righteous,  among 
whom  the  prophet  may  in  the  first  instance  have  reckoned 
his  disciples. 

In  neither  of  the  instances  just  noted  does  the  prophet 
speak  of  writing  a  book,  but  merely  of  a  word  or  a  saying. 
But  the  existence  of  such  tablets  containing  some  pregnant 
saying  may  account  for  certain  brief  and  unconnected 
sayings  that  occur  in  the  present  prophetical  books. 

Another  passage  in  Isaiah  speaks  of  the  preparation  not 
only  of  tablets,  but  of  a  book  or  rather  a  roll.  In  Is.  xxx.  8 
the  prophet  records  that  he  was  bidden,  instead  of  going 
about  as  heretofore  and  addressing  the  people,  to  go  home 
and  prepare  a  written  precis  of  what  he  had  lately  been 
speaking  in  public  to  a  public  that  will  not  heed,  in  order 
that  this  book  may  become  what  the  spoken  word  cannot 
be,  a  lasting  memorial  of  the  prophet's  teaching. 

Finally,  we  have  the  very  instructive  narrative  preserved 
in  Jer.  xxxvi.  According  to  this  it  was  not  until  the  year 
604  B.C.,  ».c.  more  than  twenty  years  after  the  call  to 
prophesy  came  to  him  (626  B.C.),  that  Jeremiah  had  any 
consciousness  that  it  was  God's  will  that  he  should  write 
as  weU  as  speak.  In  that  year  Yahweh  said  to  him,  *  Take 
thee  a  roll  of  a  book,  and  write  in  it  all  the  words  that  I 
have  spoken  unto  thee  concerning  Israel  (or  rather,  as 
the  LXX.  reads,  Jerusalem),  and  concerning  Judah,  and 
concerning  all  the  nations,  from  the  day  I  spake  unto 
thee,  from  the  days  of  Josiah,  even  unto  this  day.' 
Accordingly  Jeremiah  dictated  to  Baruch,  who  wrote 
them  on  the  roll,  '  all  the  words  of  Yahweh,  which  he  had 
spoken  to '  Jeremiah.  It  has,  indeed,  been  suggested  that 
Jeremiah  had  written  down  some  of  the  words  of  Yahweh 
before  this  time,  and  that  he  dictated  to  Baruch  out  of 
an  earher  book  (or  books)  of  his  prophecies ;  but  there  is 
not  the  slightest  indication  of  this  in  the  narrative,  and 
it  is   particularly  difficult   to   believe,   if  Jeremiah  had 


XIX.]    PROPHETIC  LITERATURE :  INTRODUCTORY       173 

dictated  to  him  out  of  a  book,  that  Baruch's  reply  to  the 
inquiry  how  he  wrote  the  book  could  have  run  as  it  does  : 

*  He  pronounced  all  these  words  unto  me  with  his  mouth, 
and  I  wrote  them  with  ink  in  a  book.' 

Moreover,  the  main  reason  assigned  for  assuming  written 
prophecies  of  Jeremiah  earlier  than  the  roll  prepared  in 
604  B.C.  is  quite  insufficient.     Even  if  it  be  correct  that 

*  the  early  prophecies  bear  so  unmistakably  the  marks  of 
the  time  when  they  were  originally  uttered,  and  are  so  full 
of  the  prophet's  youthful  energy  and  fire,  that  we  cannot 
regard  them  as  compositions  of  twenty  years  later'  (Peake), 
nothing  more,  necessarily,  follows  than  this,  that  Jeremiah 
had  before  this  time  reduced  some  of  his  teaching  to 
poetic  form ;  this  is  probable  enough,  though  we  are  not 
justified  in  concluding  that  everything  committed  to  writing 
in  604  had  reached  even  this  fixity  of  form  previously. 
In  any  case,  the  conclusion  of  the  narrative  is  suggestive  : 
King  Jehoiakim  obtains  the  roll,  and  destroys  it ;  there- 
upon, again  at  Jeremiah's  dictation,  Baruch  writes  on 
another  roll  all  the  words  that  had  been  on  the  former; 

*  and  there  were  added  besides  unto  them  many  hke  words.' 
The  last  statement  warns  us  that '  all  the  words  of  Yahweh,' 
spoken  to  Jeremiah  and  written  on  the  first  roll,  must  be 
taken,  as  in  any  case  it  would  be  sufficiently  obvious  to 
take  it,  to  mean  the  substance  of  all  Yahweh's  revelation  to 
the  prophet.  And,  further,  the  additions  made  to  the 
second  roll  suggest,  what  again  would  in  any  case  be  likely 
enough,  that  the  purpose  of  the  roll  was  to  perpetuate  past 
teaching  in  a  form,  and  with  explanations,  suitable  for  the 
present  and  the  future. 

Down  to  Jeremiah,  then,  prophets  seem  first  to  have 
spoken,  and  then,  often  perhaps  many  years  later,  to  have 
written.  With  Ezekiel  (ch.  ii.)  the  book  plays  a  part  even 
in  the  commission  to  prophesy  :  he  sees  a  book  and  absorbs 
it ;  however  we  may  exactly  explain  the  '  eating '  of  the 
book,  this  narrative  is  significant,  standing,  as  it  does,  at 
the  head  of  the  work  of  a  prophet  much  at  least  of  whose 
activity  must  have  been  primarily  hterary. 


174  CRITICAL  INTRODUCnON  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 

Except  in  the  case  of  Ezekiel,  there  Kes  between  the  early 
books  written  by  the  prophets  themselves,  or  at  their 
dictation  by  others,  and  the  four  collections  in  which  the 
prophetic  Uterature  has  been  preserved  a  more  or  less 
comphcated  history,  which  will  be  considered  in  each  case 
as  it  arises.  But  the  date  at  which  the  four  collections  can 
be  first  traced  can  better  be  considered  here,  for  the  avail- 
able evidence  is  in  the  case  of  all  four  the  same. 

The  *  Book  of  the  Twelve  '  includes  prophecies  of  Haggai 
and  Zechariah  who  hved  at  the  end  of  the  sixth,  and  of 
Malachi  who  lived  in  the  fifth  century  B.C.  At  earHest, 
then,  the  *  Book  of  the  Twelve '  was  not  compiled  earher 
than  the  fifth  century  B.C.  If,  as  seems  probable  (see  p.  229), 
it  also  includes  prophecies  written  as  late  as  the  third  century 
B.C.,  the  collection  itself  can  be  no  earUer  than  that  century. 
And  much  the  same  might  be  said,  for  reasons  given  below 
and  which  need  not  be  anticipated  here,  about  the  books 
of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah. 

But  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  we  find  clear 
traces  of  prophetic  collections  corresponding  more  or  less 
closely  to,  if  not  exactly  identical  with,  the  four  existing 
collections — Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  The  Twelve.  In  the 
celebrated  praise  of  the  famous  men  of  Israel  with  which 
the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus  (written  c.  180  B.C.)  closes,  the 
author  mentions  by  name  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel, 
adding  a  reference  to  some  striking  phrases  or  ideas  in  the 
books  that  bear  the  names  of  these  prophets.    Thus ; — 

*  For  Hezekiah  did  that  which  was  good, 

And  was  strong  in  the  ways  of  David, 
Which  Isaiah  the  prophet  commanded  (him), 

Who  was  great  and  faithful  in  his  vision. 
In  his  days  the  sun  stood  still, 

And  he  added  life  to  the  king : 
By  the  spirit  of  might  he  saw  the  end, 

And  comforted  the  mourners  in  Sion ; 
For  ever  he  declared  things  that  should  be^ 

And  hidden  things  before  they  came. 


XIX.]    PROPHETIC  LITERATURE :  INTRODUCTORY       175 

By  the  hand  of  Jeremiah,  for  they  aiRicted  him, 

Yet  from  the  womb  he  was  formed  (to  be)  a  prophet, 
To  pluck  up  and  to  break  down  and  to  destroy  and  to 
overthrow, 
And  in  like  manner  to  build  up,  to  plant  and  to  Eiake 
strong. 
Ezekiel  saw  the  vision, 

And  declared  divers  kinds  of  chariol; 
Also  he  made  mention  of  Job, 

Who  maintained  all  the  ways  of  righteousness.' 

Eoclus.  xlviii.  22-25,  xlix.  6-9. 

The  writer  then  proceeds  to  refer  to  the  remaining 
prophetic  writers,  not  individually,  but  by  the  collective 
term,  *  the  Twelve  Prophets,*  thus : — 

'  Moreover  the  Twelve  Prophets, 

May  their  bones  flourish  out  of  their  places, 
Who  recovered  Jacob  to  health. 

And  restored  him  by  confidence  of  hope.* 

EcoluB.  xlix.  10. 

From  this  so  much  at  least  may  be  inferred :  (1)  that  Ben 
Sirach  was  famiKar  with  a  book  of  Isaiah  that  included  chs. 
xl.-lxvi.  of  Isaiah  in  whole  or  in  part  (see  below,  p.  182) :  (2) 
that  a  prophetic  collection  entitled  '  The  Twelve  Prophets ' 
already  existed ;  and  (3)  that  Ben  Sirach  was  famiUar 
with  ch.  i.  of  Jeremiah  and  with  Ezekiel  1.  and  xiv.  14. 
In  a  word,  Ben  Sirach  at  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century  was  familiar  with  four  prophetic  collections  which 
passed  under  the  names  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  The 
Twelve  (Prophets),  and,  apparently,  with  no  other  similar 
(Scriptural)  books  :  he  makes  no  allusion  to  Daniel. 

The  question,  however,  remains:  Were  the  prophetic 
volumes  with  which  Ben  Sirach  was  familiar  co-extensive 
with  the  four  existing  prophetic  collections :  and  if  not, 
how  nearly  ?  In  the  case  of  '  The  Twelve/  unless  we  con- 
template the  improbable  possibility  that  the  work  of  one 
prophet  was  bodily  substituted  for  another,  the  framework 
of  that  volume  has  never  suffered  alteration  since  c.  180 ; 
it  consisted  of  twelve  sections  bearing  the  names  of  twelve 


176  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 

prophets  then,  it  consists  of  twelve  exactly  similar  sections 
still. 

But  this  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  either  the  book 
of  The  Twelve  or  the  other  collections  were  secure  thence- 
forward against  all  interpolation  or  alteration;  on  the 
other  hand,  they  almost  certainly  suffered  such  modifica- 
tions to  some  greater  or  less  extent ;  for  the  differences 
both  in  the  matter  of  arrangement  and  in  extent  between 
the  Hebrew  text  and  the  Greek  translation  (?  c.  100  B.C.) 
of  the  book  of  Jeremiah  is  considerable,  and  there  are 
differences,  though  they  are  very  much  sUghter,  in  the  other 
three  collections. 

Yet  allowing  due  weight  to  the  significant  differences  of 
the  Greek  version,  the  character  of  the  allusions  in  Ben 
Sirach,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  he  makes  no  reference  to 
Daniel,  and  that  Daniel  never  gained  a  place  in  the  prophetic 
Uterature,  creates  a  considerable  presumption  in  favour  of 
the  conclusion  that  four  great  prophetic  collections  already 
existed  c.  180  B.C.  possessing  the  same  outstanding  features 
as,  and  approximately  co-extensive  with,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel,  and  The  Twelve  as  they  now  stand  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible.  The  editors,  then,  who,  by  bringing  together  the 
various  elements  that  now  compose  Isaiah,  The  Twelve,  and 
Jeremiah,  disposed  the  remains  of  ancient  prophecy  in 
three  volumes  which,  with  the  already  existing  book  of 
Ezekiel,  made  four,  probably  Uved  in,  and  perhaps  towards 
the  close  of,  the  third  century  B.C. 

Did  these  editors  merely  compile,  or  did  they  also 
modify  ?  Did  the  editors  of  prophetic  hterature,  in  the 
interests  of  the  edification  of  their  own  age,  feel  as  free  as 
the  prophets  themselves  had  felt  (see  p.  173)  to  add  to  the 
words  received  '  many  Uke  words '  ?  If  we  approach  the 
question  from  our  modem  attitude  towards  Scripture,  which 
makes  addition  to  the  text  of  it  impossible,  and  compels 
all  addition  or  modification  that  may  be  made  in  the 
interests  of  edification  to  take  the  form  of  commentary  or 
interpretation,  we  are  ready  to  answer,  No.  Yet  a  com- 
parison of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  text  of  Jeremiah  in 


XIX.]    PROPHETIC  LITERATURE :  INTRODUCTORY       177 

particular,  but  also  of  the  other  books,  should  give  us  pause. 
Moreover,  it  is  certain  that  the  prophetic  books  have  re- 
ceived some  late  accretions ;  most  conclusive  is  the  presence 
in  Jer.  x.  10  of  a  gloss  written  in  Aramaic^  which  has  in- 
truded into  the  middle  of  a  sentence  of  the  original  prophecy 
which  was  written  in  Hebrew. 

The  question  whether  the  prophetic  writings  have  been 
subject  to  more  extensive  editorial  modification  than  the 
mere  addition  to  them  of  such  glosses  as  that  just  mentioned 
will  be  dealt  with,  so  far  as  the  scope  of  the  present  work 
allows  it  to  be  dealt  with  at  all,  in  the  following  chapters. 
But  here  an  important  general  consideration  may  be  briefly 
stated :  between  the  prophetic  and  Uterary  activity  of 
Isaiah,  Amos,  Micah,  Hosea,  Jeremiah  and  others,  and  the 
editorial  activity  which  resulted  in  the  production  of  four 
collections  or  volumes  of  prophetic  literature,  three,  at  least, 
and  probably  five,  centuries  elapsed.  But  within  even  the 
shorter  of  these  two  intervals  prophecy  had  undergone  a 
profound  change  :  the  emphasis,  which  at  first  lay  on 
denunciation  of  the  sin  of  Yahweh's  people  and  warning  of 
judgment  to  come  upon  them,  has  been  exchanged  for  an  em- 
phasis on  promises  of  their  coming  delivery ;  and  the  pro- 
minence given  by  the  earlier  prophets  to  an  approaching  judg- 
ment on  Judah  yields  to  an  increasing  tendency  in  the  later 
prophets  to  speak  of  an  approaching  world  judgment.  Did 
the  editors  allow  the  threats  uttered  against  former  genera- 
tions of  Jews  to  stand  unrelieved  in  the  books  they  prepared 
for  their  own  age  ?  Or  are  they  responsible  for  adding  to, 
or  interweaving  with,  the  ancient  prophecies  of  judgment  to 
come,  passages  of  promise  written  at  a  more  recent  date  ? 
The  answer  appears  to  be  that  to  a  certain  extent  they  are 
responsible  for  such  additions  and  modifications ;  exactly 
to  what  extent  it  is  difiicult  to  say,  but  see  below,  e.g, 
pp.  187,  207,  213,  218,  226. 


178  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 


CHAPTER  XX 

ISAIAH 

Prophecies  of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  who  was  active  in  the 
latter  half  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.,  and  perhaps  outlived 
it,  and  narratives  about  him,  form  the  most  conspicuous 
elements  in  the  first  of  the  four  collections  of  prophetic 
hterature.  His  name  gives  its  title  to  the  collection,  and 
he  came  to  be  regarded  as  the  author  of  the  entire  book ; 
numerous  passages  from  many  parts  of  the  book  are  cited 
as  his  words  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  Ecclus.  xlviii.  24  f . 
(cited  above  on  p.  178)  refers  to  him  passages  in  Is.  xl.-b5:vi. 
as  weU  as  in  i.-xxxix. 

And  yet  nothing  is  clearer  than  that  large  parts  of  this 
collection  are  not  the  work  of  Isaiah.  In  the  first  place, 
chs.  xl.-lv.,  which  are  in  the  main  homogeneous  and  the 
work  of  a  single  age  and  author,  clearly  imply  that  they 
were  written  long  subsequent  to  the  age  of  Isaiah.  And 
these  implications  do  not  consist  in  the  fact  that  specific 
events  that  took  place  two  centuries  after  the  opening  of 
Isaiah's  career  are  foretold  ;  for,  though  it  is  not  customary 
in  prophecy  to  mention  by  name  persons  yet  unborn, 
still  such  a  case  might  be  met  by  assuming  an  exceptional 
particularity  in  this  particular  prophecy.  What  is  con- 
clusive is  that  a  person  who  was  not  bom,  events  that  did 
not  happen,  and  conditions  that  did  not  begin  to  prevail, 
till  a  century  or  more  after  Isaiah's  death,  are  here  pre- 
supposed as  abeady  actually  existing,  or  as  having  already 
happened.  The  Babylonian  Exile  which  began  in  597 
and  586  B.C.,  the  emergence  of  Cyrus  on  the  field  of  history 
e.  650  B.C.,  the  desolation  of  Jerusalem,  are  not  predicted ; 


XX.]  ISAIAH  179 

they  are  elements  in  the  historical  situation  actually 
existing  at  the  time  at  which  the  author  of  these  chapters 
wrote ;  Uving  under  those  conditions  he  makes  certain 
predictions  of  the  way  in  which  those  conditions  will 
change,  or  of  what  will  arise  out  of  them :  the  Exile  will 
come  to  an  end,  the  Jews  will  return  to  Jerusalem,  Cyrus 
will  let  them  go  and  provide  for  the  rebuilding  of 
Jerusalem. 

The  inevitable  conclusion  is  that  these  chapters  were 
written  after  Cyrus  had  already  become  famous,  and 
(unless  we  treat  the  predictions  as  vaticinia  post  eventum, 
for  which  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason)  before  he  actually 
destroyed  the  Babylonian  Empire  and  the  Jews  returned 
and  rebuilt  Jerusalem,  t.c.  after  550  and  before  538  B.C. 

In  the  history  of  criticism  a  large  place  has  been  given 
to  the  linguistic  argument  that  the  style  and  language  of 
large  parts  of  chs.  i.-xxxix.  and  of  xl.-lxvi.  are  so  different 
that  they  cannot  be  the  work  of  a  single  author.  The 
differences  are,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  very  great,  and  the 
argument  is  weighty.  But  even  if  the  differences  were 
much  slighter,  the  conclusion  that  the  origins  of  the  sections 
of  the  book  of  Isaiah  in  question  were  separated  from  one 
another  by  nearly  two  centuries  would  not  be  affected; 
this  rests  not,  as  is  sometimes  mistakenly  suggested,  on  a 
denial  of  the  predictive  element  in  prophecy,  nor  again  on 
philology,  but  on  the  fact  that  the  age  out  of  which  these 
two  bodies  of  prophecy  arose,  and  from  the  standpoint  of 
which  the  predictions  each  contains  were  made,  is,  as 
shown  by  the  contemporaries  to  which  the  writers  severally 
refer,  in  the  one  case  the  age  of  Sargon  and  Sennacherib, 
of  Ahaz  and  Hezekiah,  i.e.  the  eighth  century  B.C.,  and  in 
the  other  the  age  of  Cyrus,  t.e.  the  sixth  century. 

Moreover,  it  is  not  the  case  that  the  prophecies  of  the 
sixth  century  contained  in  the  book  of  Isaiah  are  confined 
to  the  last  twenty-seven  chapters,  so  that  the  book  could 
be  explained  as  due  to  the  accidental  union,  in  a  single 
roll,  of  prophecies  of  Isaiah  and  prophecies  of  a  'Great 
Unknown '  living  in  the  sixth  century.    That  the  book  of 


180  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

Isaiah  is  the  work  of  two  authors  thus  distributed  is  a 
widespread  popular  misconception  of  critical  conclusions, 
due  largely  no  doubt  to  the  fact  that  it  has  been  found 
convenient  to  employ  the  term  Deutero-Isaiah  for  that 
eidlic  writer  who,  next  to  Isaiah,  has  contributed  most 
largely  to  the  book.  Deutero-Isaiah  was  the  term 
employed  down  to  1892  to  denote  the  author  of  Is.  xl.-lxvi. : 
since  then,  as  a  result  of  Duhm's  criticism,  it  has  been 
increasingly  recognised  that  the  work  of  *  Deutero-Isaiah  ' 
does  not  extend  beyond  chs.  xl.-lv. ;  for  ch.  Ivi.-lxvi. 
Duhm  invented  the  term  Trito-Isaiah.  But,  again,  this 
only  means  that  three  prophets  have  contributed  an 
important  body  of  prophecy  to  the  book ;  it  neither 
implies  that  not  more  than  three  prophets  have  contributed 
anything,  nor  that  all  of  chs.  i.-xxxix.  was  the  work  of  one 
man ;  the  last  point  has  never  been  advocated  by  any 
critical  scholar  since  the  unity  of  the  entire  book  was 
abandoned.  Within  chs.  i.-xxxix.  there  are  passages, 
such  as  ch.  xiii.,  which  as  unmistakably  presuppose  the 
conditions  of  the  sixth  century  as  chs.  xl.-lv.  :  the  author 
of  ch.  xiii.  hved  at  a  time  when  not  Nineveh  and  the 
Assyrians,  a^s  in  the  time  of  Isaiah,  were  respectively  the 
political  centre  and  the  imperial  people  of  the  ancient 
world,  but  Babylon,  '  the  glory  of  kingdoms,'  and  the 
Babylonians,  i.e.  after  the  fall  of  Nineveh  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Assyrian  Empire  in  607,  and  after  the  founda- 
tion of  its  successor,  the  Neo-Babylonian  Empire,  by 
Nabopolassar  and  Nebuchadnezzar,  but  before  Cyrus 
arose  and  in  turn  overthrew  the  Neo-Babylonian  Empire 
in  538  B.C. 

Scarcely  less  unmistakable  is  the  evidence  that  other 
parts  of  the  book  such  as  chs.  xxiv.-xxvii.  and  Ivi.-lxvi.  were 
written  after  the  Exile  ;  but  even  if  this  were  not  so,  the 
exilic  origin  of  ch.  xiii.,  the  late  exilic  origin  of  chs.  xl.-lv. 
justifies  the  conclusion  that  the  book  of  Isaiah  is  a  post- 
exilic  compilation  or  collection  of  prophetic  literature,  the 
work  of  different  authors  and  of  different  ages. 

Not  only  so  :  there  is  evidence  that  the  book  of  Isaiah  is 


XX.]  ISAIAH  '  181 

not  a  collection  of  prophecies  of  different  authors  and 
different  ages  freely  gathered  and  arranged  once  for  all  by 
a  single  post-exilic  editor.  It  not  only  contains  prophecies 
of  different  prophets,  but  it  incorporates  different  books 
or  collections  of  prophecies  that  must  have  had  their  own 
previous  history.  This  is  indicated  by  the  presence  in 
the  book  of  several  titles,  and  certain  other  features. 
Guided  by  these  features,  we  may  divide  the  book  as 
follows : — 

(a)  i.  2-31.  Prophecies  preceded  by  a  general  title 
(i.  1)  ascribing  authorship  to  Isaiah. 

(6)  ii.-xii.  Prophecies  mainly  concerning  Judah  and 
Jerusalem,  ascribed  in  a  title  (ii.  2)  to  Isaiah. 

(c)  xiii.-xxiii.  *  Oracles,*  which  the  title  to  the  first 

section  (xiii.  1)  probably  intends  to  ascribe  to 
Isaiah,  but  which  certainly  contains  some 
prophecies  written  as  late  as  the  Exile  (e,g,  oh. 
xiii.,  xxi.  I-IO). 

(d)  xxiv.-xxvii.  Anonymous  prophecy  (post-exilic). 

(e)  xxviii.-xxxiii.  A  group  of  prophetic  poems  begin- 

ning with  the  interjection  Ah!    (R.V,  Woe! 
or  Ho !). 
(/)  xxxiv.-xxxv.  Anonymous  prophecy  (exiUo  or  post- 
•  exilic). 

{g)  xxxvi.-xxxix.  Mainly  extracts,  referring  to  Isaiah, 

from  2  Kings. 
(Jt)  xl.-lxvi.  Anonymous  prophecy. 

The  exact  processes  by  which  this  group  of  books,  or 
extracts,  gradually  coalesced  into  the  existing  book  of  Isaiah 
must  remain  uncertain.  But  the  analogy  of  the  book  of 
Jeremiah  in  which  the  last  chapter  is  an  extract  from 
Kings  suggests  that  the  extract  from  Kings  in  Is.  xxxvi.- 
xxxix.  once  formed  the  close  of  the  book  ascribed  in  the 
title  (i.  1)  to  Isaiah,  and  consequently  that  i.-xxxix.  (or 
the  major  part  thereof)  and  xl.-lxvi.  each  once  existed  as 
separate  books;  we  may  find  some  confirmation  of  this 
in  the  fact  that  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  20-23  impUes  that  the 


182  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 

author  of  Chronicles  regarded  Is.  xl.-lxvi.,  or  at  least 
Is.  xliv.  28,  not  as  the  work  of  Isaiah,  but  of  Jeremiah  ! 

The  prophetic  collection  that  concluded  with  the  extract 
from  Kings  must  itself  have  been  formed  in  the  post- 
exiUc  period  :  this  is  true  also  of  some,  if  not  all,  of  the 
yet  smaller  books  or  collections  now  included  within  chs. 
i.-xxxix.,  certainly  of  the  '  Oracles '  (xiii.-xxiii.),  probably 
even  of  chs.  ii.-xii.  which  consist  so  largely  of  prophecies 
of  Isaiah. 

The  indications  that  several  different  and  successive 
stages  in  the  history  of  the  book  of  Isaiah  took  place  after 
the  Exile  suggest  that  the  final  stage  by  which  the  book  in 
its  present  form  was  reached  must  not  be  placed  very  early 
in  the  post-exiUc  period — probably  not  earUer  than  the 
third  century  B.C.,  in  any  case,  and  certainly  not  if,  as  sug- 
gested above,  the  Chronicler  associated  Is.  xl.-lxvi.  with 
Jeremiah.  Whether  any  considerable  additions  were  made 
much  after  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  B.C.  is 
doubtful ;  the  terms  in  which  Ben  Sirach  (c.  180  B.C.)  refers 
to  Isaiah,  in  the  passage  quoted  on  p.  174,  might  very  well 
cover  the  present  book  :  the  extract  from  Kings  is  referred 
to  in  xlviii.  23 ;  xlviii.  24  f.  refers  to  (parts  of)  xl.-lxvi.,  and 
the  *  vision,'  i.e.  the  prophetic  teaching,  might  very  well 
cover  chs.  i.-xxxv.  Still,  it  cannot  be  said  that  this 
evidence  absolutely  excludes  the  interpolation  into  the 
book  of  Isaiah  known  to  Ben  Sirach  even  of  a  long  section 
such  as  chs.  xxiv.-xxvii.  Yet  considerations  based  on  the 
history  of  the  canon,  and  the  evidence  of  the  Greek  version 
which  contains  the  whole  book  with  the  exception  of  a 
verse  or  two  (ii.  22,  xxxviii.  15,  xl.  7,  Ivi.  12),  and  a  clause 
or  two  besides  {e.g.  vi.  13,  last  clause),  render  the  theory  of 
late  second-century  interpolations  hazardous. 

We  may  now  proceed  to  a  brief  detailed  consideration  of 
the  chief  constituents  of  this  post-exilic  prophetic  collection, 
firstly  of  those  parts  of  it  directly  related  to  Isaiah,  then  of 
the  exihc  prophecies,  then  of  the  post-exilic  prophecies, 
and  finally  of  some  ol  the  chronologically  more  ambiguoua 
passages. 


XX.]  ISAIAH  183 

The  work  of  or  relating  to  Isaiah  is  confined  to,  though  it 
does  not  constitute  the  whole  of,  the  following  sections  of 
the  book :  i.-xii.,  xiii.-xxiii.,  xxviii.-xxxiii.,  xxxvi.-xxxix. 
Within  these  chapters  we  find  (a)  prophetic  poems  and 
fragments  or  sayings  of  Isaiah ;  (h)  autobiographical 
notices,  vi.-viii.  18  (in  the  main)  ;  (c)  biographical  notices 
about  the  prophet,  xx.,  xxxvi.-xxxix. 

The  notices,  whether  autobiographical  or  biographical, 
do  not  give  a  continuous  account  of  Isaiah's  life,  but  only 
information  about  certain  periods  of  it :  ch.  vi.  records  the 
circumstances  of  his  call  (c.  740  B.C.),  and  vii.  1-viii.  18 
contains  some  notices  of  his  activity  during  the  years  735- 
733  B.C. ;  then,  except  perhaps  for  ch.  xxxix.,  which  may 
refer  to  an  event  in  the  interval,  follows  a  blank  of  more 
than  twenty  years  till  the  year  711  B.C.  to  which  ch.  xx. 
refers ;  then  another  blank  of  ten  years ;  and  then  the 
story  of  Isaiah's  activity  in  701  is  told  in  chs.  xxxvi.-xxxix. 
These  chapters  would  also  give  information  of  yet  later 
activity  of  Isaiah,  if  the  theory  were  correct  that  xxxvi.  f. 
contains  not,  as  is  commonly  held,  two  different  accounts 
of  Sennacherib's  campaign  in  701,  but  accounts  of  two 
different  campaigns — one  in  701,  and  another,  of  which 
as  yet  there  is  no  distinct  historical  evidence,  some  years 
later. 

The  prophecies  of  Isaiah  cannot  aU  be  assigned  with 
any  certainty  to  any  of  the  points  in  Isaiah's  career  described 
by  himself  or  others,  or  to  other  definite  periods.  Perhaps 
the  earliest  is  ii.  6-19,  which  may  have  been  composed  before 
the  Assyrian  campaign  of  738  disturbed  the  prevalent  con- 
fidence in  the  wealth  and  material  resources  of  the  kingdom. 
A  Httle  later,  but  before  the  Syro-Ephraimitish  war,  say 
in  737  B.C.,  may  be  placed  the  composition  of  the  longest 
surviving  poem  of  Isaiah's,  ix.  8-x.  4,  together  with  v.  26-29, 
the  misplaced  conclusion  of  the  poem.  Before  732,  the 
year  in  which  Damascus  fell,  must  be  placed  the  poem, 
xvii.  1-11,  which  'predicts  the  fall  of  that  city  ;  and,  for  a 
similar  reason,  xxviii.  1-4  must  have  been  composed  before 
722,  the  year  of  the  destruction  of  Samaria.     On  the  other 


184  CRITICAL,  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [CH. 

hand,  an  allusion  to  the  capture  of  Carchemish  indicates 
that  X.  6-15  was  composed  after  717.  To  the  time  immedi- 
ately preceding  or  dming  Sennacherib's  campaign  may  be 
referred  (apart  from  later  modifications)  i.  5-9,  xviii.,  xxviii.- 
xxxi.,  xxii.  1-14.  Prophecies  more  or  less  clearly  Isaiah's, 
but  of  ambiguous  date,  are  i.  2-4,  10-26,  iii.  1-iv.  1,  v., 
X.  27-32,  xiv.  28-32  (in  part),  xxii.  15-25. 

The  disregard  of  chronological  arrangement  in  Isaiah 
i.-xxxix.,  which  the  foregoing  paragraphs  indicate,  is  in  part 
at  least  due  to  the  way  in  which  the  book  arose  ;  the  editor 
who  brought  together  chs.  ii.-xii.,  xiii.-xxiii.,  xxviii.-xxxiii., 
and  xxxvi.-xxxix.  might  of  course  have  freely  rearranged 
his  materials ;  he  preferred  to  preserve  the  Uterary  con- 
nections, and  to  give  the  chronology  only  second  considera- 
tion ;  ii.-xii.  stands  first  as  containing  immistakable 
allusions  to  the  times  of  Uzziah  and  Ahaz,  xiii.-xxiii.  which 
aUudes  to  the  death  of  Ahaz  follows,  and  then  xxviii.-xxxiii. 
and  xxxvi.-xxxix.  which  refer  to  the  days  of  Ahaz's 
successor,  Hezekiah. 

The  exilic  elements  in  the  book  of  Isaiah  include  xiii. 
(see  p.  180),  xxi.  1-10  (in  which  the  threatened  city  is  almost 
certainly  Babylon,  and  the  situation  similar  to  that  in 
ch.  xiii.),  xl.-lv.,  and  perhaps  xiv.  4  b.-21  and  xxi.  11-15. 

Of  chs.  xl.-lv.  it  is  necessary  to  speak  further,  for  import- 
ant questions  of  the  extent  and  integrity  of  this  prophecy 
arise,  many  holding  that  Ivi.-lxvi.  is  also  the  work  of  the 
same  author,  while  some,  on  the  other  hand,  argue  that 
even  into  xl.-lv.  extraneous  and  later  material  has  been 
interpolated. 

The  chief  features  in  the  actual  situation  out  of  which 
xl.-lv.  arose,  and  the  chief  elements  in  the  future  predicted, 
are  these  :  (1)  the  Jews  are  now  exiles  in  Babylon  ;  the 
writer  predicts  that  they  will  shortly  return  to  Sion  (see 
xlviii.  14,  20,  H.  11,  xliii.  14  ff.,  cp.  xl.  1  f.)  ;  (2)  Sion  is 
now  waste,  but  is  to  be  rebuilt  (see  xliv.  28,  xlix.  14-21, 
li.  3,  17-23,  Iii.  7-12,  liv.)  ;  (3)  Babylon  is  now  exalted,  but 
is  to  be  brought  low  (see  xlvii.,  cp.  xlvi.  1,  2) ;  (4)  Cyrus  is 
already  well  known  (xHv.  28,  xiv.   1),  and,  for  such  is 


xx.l  ISAIAH  185 

probably  the  implication  of  xli.  25  ff.,  has  united  Persia  to 
the  east  and  Media  to  the  north  of  Babylon  (549  B.C.) ; 
on  the  other  hand,  he  has  not  yet  achieved,  as  the  prophecy 
predicts  that  he  will,  and  as,  in  538  B.C.,  he  actually  did, 
achieve  the  capture  of  Babylon. 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  xl.-lv.  was  written  between 
649  and  638.  Was  the  closing  section  of  Isaiah,  Ivi.-lxvi., 
written  at  the  same  period  ?  Was  it  the  work  of  the  same 
author,  but  written  in  whole  or  in  part,  as  some  have 
supposed,  shortly  after  the  return  in  537  ?  Or  was  it  the 
work  both  of  another  author  or  other  authors  and  of  a 
different  period  ?  The  following  considerations  suggest 
that  the  last  is  the  correct  view  : — 

(1)  The  general  purpose  and  subject  are  different.  The 
whole  of  xl.-lv.  is  dominated  by  one  ruUng  purpose — ^to 
rouse  the  exiles  out  of  their  despondency,  and  to  fiU  them, 
'  the  servant  of  Yahweh,'  with  enthusiasm  for  their  true 
destiny,  which  is  to  instruct  the  world  at  large  in  true 
religion.  For  this  purpose  the  writer  dwells  on  such  sub- 
jects as  the  omnipotence  of  Yahweh,  his  intention  to 
redeem  the  Jews,  the  powerlessness  of  idols  and  consequently 
of  the  people,  though  they  be  the  imperial  Babylonians 
themselves,  who  serve  them.  These  chapters,  then,  though 
they  may  not  show  an  uninterrupted  development  of 
thought,  are  yet  held  together  by  a  few  closely  related  ideas. 
The  contrast  afforded  by  Ivi.-lxvi.  is  great ;  these  last 
chapters  are  not  governed  by  any  single  dominating  pur- 
pose, but  are  quite  miscellaneous,  now  describing  the  terms 
on  which  eunuchs  and  strangers  may  be  admitted  to  the 
Jewish  community  (Ivi.  1-8),  now  denouncing  a  Jewish  com- 
munity in  which  the  people  generally  resort  to  illegitimate 
practices,  from  which  the  righteous  perish,  and  in  which 
the  watchmen  are  neglectful  (Ivi.  9-lvii.  21),  or  which  is 
sedulous  in  fasting,  but  given  to  inhumanity  and  the  pro- 
fanation of  the  Sabbath  (Iviii.,  Hx.),  now  depicting  the 
restoration  and  future  glory  of  Sion  (Ix.-Lxii.),  or  Yahweh 
returning  victorious  from  his  conjflict  with  Edom  (Ixiii.  1-6), 
now  providing:  a  Utursrical  confession  (Ixiii.  7-lxiv.),  and 


186  CRinOAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 

finally  contrasting   the  characters   and  destinies   of  the 
apostates  and  the  loyal  (Ixv.,  Ixvi.). 

(2)  The  historical  and  social  background  of  Ivi.-lxvi.  is 
different  from  that  of  xl.-lv. :  no  more  allusions  to  Cjo-us 
or  Babylon  occur ;  on  the  other  hand,  at  times  in  these 
chapters  the  people  addressed  seem  to  be  hving  not  on  the 
alluvial  plains  of  Babylon,  but  amid  the  rocky,  mountain- 
ous scenery  of  Palestine  (Ivii.  3-7) ;  subject  to  native, 
though  neglectful,  leaders  (Ivi.  10  f. :  cp.  e.g.  Jer.  vi.  17,  ii.8), 
and  to  native,  though  unjust,  tribunals  (Ux.  3-9,  14). 
Again,  some  at  least  of  the  references  to  the  Temple  and 
the  altar  are  predictions  not  of  the  restoration  of  what  is 
non-existent,  but  of  what  is  hereafter  to  happen  in  a 
Temple  or  on  an  altar  that  already  exists  :  see  Ivi.  5,  7, 
Ix.  7.  On  the  other  hand,  Ix.  10  suggests  that  the  walls 
of  Jerusalem  had  not  yet  been  rebuilt. 

(3)  In  addition  to  what  has  been  noted  under  (1),  as 
illustrations  of  difference  in  ideas  between  xl.-lv.  and  Ivi.- 
lxvi.,  the  prominence  given  to  the  Sabbath  in  Ivi.  and 
Iviii.,  and  the  reference  to  the  Holy  Spirit  (Lxiii.  10,  11), 
may  be  noticed. 

(4)  Between  xl.-lv.  and  most  of  Ivi.-lxvi.  there  is  a 
difference  of  style.  A  criterion  referred  to  in  another 
connection  is  available ;  the  shorter  form  of  the  first 
personal  pronoun  is  but  three  times  as  frequent  as  the 
longer  in  xl.-lv. ;  in  Ivi.-Lxvi.  it  is  eight  times  as  frequent. 

The  force  of  these  converging  fines  of  evidence  has  led 
many  subsequent  writers  to  follow  Duhm  in  concluding 
that  Ivi.-lxvi.  is  not  the  work  of  the  same  author  as  xl.-lv. 
The  various  sections  of  Ivi.-Lxvi.  are  not  necessarily  the 
work  of  one  author  or  one  date  ;  but  the  major  part  of  the 
section  may  with  probability  be  assigned  to  the  middle 
of  the  fifth  century  B.C.,  when  the  Temple  was  standing, 
but  Nehemiah  had  not  yet  restored  the  ruined  walls,  and 
when  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  and  the  status  of 
aUens  were  occupying  the  attention  of  the  people. 

The  chief  question  of  the  integrity  of  xl.-lv.  gathers  round 
certain  of  the  passages  which  treat  of  the  Servant  of 


XX.]  ISAIAH  187 

Yahweh,  viz.  xlii.  1-4,  xHx.  1-6,  1.  4-9,  lii.  13-Iiii.  12.    To 

speak  of  these  as  the  *  Servant  Songs  '  is  rather  misleading  ; 
the  passages  in  question  are  poetical,  but  so  also  is  the  rest 
of  xl.-lv :  they  refer  to  the  Servant,  but  so  also  do  other 
parts  of  xl.-lv.  It  is  impossible  here  to  consider  the  vast 
variety  of  opinions  as  to  the  origin  of  these  passages,  or 
the  grounds  on  which  some  treat  them  as  aHen  to,  and 
others,  with  whom  the  present  writer  agrees,  as  an  integral 
part  of  chs.  xl.-iv. 

Among  the  longer  post-exilic  sections  in  the  book  of 
Isaiah,  next  to  Ivi.-Lxvi.,  which  has  just  been  considered, 
is  xxiv.-xxvii.  In  this  section  the  political  and  social 
conditions  of  the  Jews  after  the  Exile  are  reflected ;  they 
are  pohtically  dependent,  without  a  king  of  their  own ; 
the  priesthood  is  the  highest  rank  among  them ;  many  of 
them  are  scattered  over  the  earth ;  those  in  Palestine 
appear  to  be  few  in  number,  and  mingled  with  the  heathen  ; 
yet  the  writer,  Uving  in  Jerusalem  (xxv.  6),  anticipates  a 
world-judgment  and  the  intervention  of  Yahweh  to  deHver 
his  people,  now  poor,  distressed,  and  helpless.  Striking 
ideas,  such  as  those  of  resurrection  and  the  aboHtion  of 
death,  and  style  and  language,  point  no  less  surely  to  a 
post-exilic  date.  It  is  only  when  a  more  precise  deter- 
mination of  date  is  attempted  that  imcertainty  arises. 
Was  the  prophecy  written  as  late  as  about  200  B.C.,  to 
which  some  of  the  striking  ideas  might  most  naturally 
point,  or  as  early  as  about  400  B.C.,  which  would  more 
obviously  explain  the  linguistic  character  of  the  section  ? 

Other  probably  post-exilic  passages  arexi.  9-xii.  6,  xv.-xvi. 
(written  in  part  perhaps  c.  470  B.C.),  xix.  (at  least  in  part), 
xxxiii.,  and  some  at  least  of  the  passages  of  promise 
{e.g.  xxix.  17-24)  now  interwoven  with  the  prophecies  of 
judgment  in  xxviii.-xxxi. 

Of  the  passages  which  it  is  more  difficult  to  classify  with 
any  certainty  a^  belonging  to  the  eighth  century,  or  the 
Exile,  or  the  post-exiHc  period,  the  most  interesting  and 
important  are  several  eschatological  poems.  It  would  be 
precarious  to  argio  that  Isaiah  could  not  have  spoken  of 


188  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

the  future  beyond  judgment,  as  well  as  of  judgment  itself  : 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  did  (i.  24)  ;  but  most  of  the  poems 
in  question  seem  on  other  grounds  more  likely  to  have  been 
the  work  of  a  later  age.  Taken  in  its  most  obvious  sense, 
xi.  1  seems  to  imply  that  the  dynasty  of  David  has  been 
overthrown :  but  if  this  be  so,  xi.  1-8  was  written  after 
686  B.C.  Then  was  ix.  2-7  the  work  of  Isaiah,  or  of  one 
who  had  actually  shared  with  his  people  the  long  darkness 
of  the  Babylonian  exile  ?  The  answer  wiU  be  largely  deter- 
mined by  the  significance  attached  to  the  ideas.  So,  again, 
do  iv.  2-6  and  ii.  2-4  (=Micah  iv.  1-3)  embody  Isaiah's 
conception  of  the  ideal  Jerusalem,  or  those  of  exilic  or  post- 
exilic  writers  ?  Other  passages  of  doubtful  origin  are 
xiv.  4-21  (more  probably  exilic  than  Isaianic),  xxiii., 
xxxiv.  f.  The  last  section  contains  some  post-exilic  work, 
but  parts  of  it  may  be  ezilio. 


xzi.]  JEREMIAH  li^ 


CHAPTER  XXI 

JEREMIAH 

The  book  of  Jeremiah  resembles  in  two  respects  Is.  i.- 
xxxix — i.e.  the  book  of  Isaiah  before  the  second  part 
became  attached  to  the  first.  Like  Is.  i.-xxxix.,  Jeremiah 
concludes  with  an  extract  from  the  book  of  Kings,  and  it 
is  not  governed  in  its  arrangement  exclusively,  or  even 
very  largely,  by  a  chronological  principle.  The  neglect  ol 
the  chronological  principle  has  introduced  into  Jeremiah, 
though  it  is  in  some  respects  a  less  miscellaneous  collection, 
almost  greater  confusion  than  exists  in  Isaiah. 

The  extract  from  Kings  with  which  this  collection  closes 
(ch.  lii.)  refers  to  the  release  of  Jehoiachin  in  the  year  561  ; 
and  to  *  all  the  (subsequent)  days '  of  his  Hfe  down  to  his 
death.  The  presence  of  this  chapter,  which  cannot  have 
been  written  till  some  time  after  661,  nor  included  in  the 
book  of  Jeremiah  till  later  still,  is  one  of  the  most  obvious 
of  many  indications  that  Jeremiah,  who  began  to  prophesy 
in  626,  and  cannot  have  been  bom  much,  if  at  all,  later  than 
660,  did  not  write  the  book  that  now  bears  his  name. 

Compared  with  the  entire  book  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah  dis 
plays  certain  differences :  it  contains  no  long  anonymous 
prophecies  such  as  occur  in  Is.  xxiv.-xxvii.,  xl.-lxvi.,  nor 
any  great  proportion  of  prophetic  material  clearly  revealing 
historical  situations  of  which  it  can  be  asserted  with  cer- 
tainty that  they  only  arose  after  the  prophet's  death. 
Chs.  1.,  li.  are  commonly  and  rightly  regarded  as  revealing 
an  historical  situation  later  than  that  of  Jeremiah's  lif*^- 
time ;  other  prophecies  in  Jeremiah  also  appear  to  many 
to  be  the  work  of  later  writers,  but  this  is  mainly  on  th« 


190   CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

ground  of  the  ideas  contained  in  them  or  of  their  Uterary 
aflSnities.  Broadly  speaking,  almost  the  whole  book  of 
Jeremiah  consists  of  prophecies  claiming  to  be  by  Jere- 
miah, or  of  narratives  about  him.  This  being  so,  it  will 
be  convenient  to  consider  the  disposition  of  the  various 
elements  in  the  book  first,  and  then  the  degree  to  which 
earher  and  genuine  work  has  received  accretions. 

In  the  first  instance,  Jeremiah  may  be  divided  into  four 
sections  distinguished  from  one  another  by  certain  general 
differences  of  character : — 

1.  Prophecies  mainly  referring  to  Judah,  with  some 

narrative  sections  interspersed  :   chs.  i.-xxv. 

2.  Narratives,  including  some  prophecies  (especially  in 

xxx.-xxxiii.)  :   chs.  xxvi.-xlv. 

3.  Prophecies  concerning  foreign  nations :  chs.  xlvi.-li. ; 

Cp.  XXV. 

4.  Extract  from  2  Kings  (xxv.) :  ch.  lii. 

In  section  one  (chs.  i.-xxv.)  the  narratives  or  notes  are 
autobiographical ;  exceptional  references  to  Jeremiah  in 
the  third  person  occur  only  in  the  general  title,  i.  1-3,  the 
titles  or  introductory  formulae  in  vii.  1,  xi.  1,  xiv.  1,  xxi.  1, 
and  also  in  xix.  14,  xx.  1-3,  xxi.  3.  On  the  other  hand,  in 
sections  two  and  three  Jeremiah  is  regularly  referred  to  in 
the  third  person.  Thus  the  first  section  has  the  appearance 
of  being  in  the  main  derived  from,  or  based  on,  a  collection 
of  prophecies  made  by  Jeremiah  himself,  and  provided 
by  him  with  certain  autobiographical  memoirs :  see,  for 
example,  i.  4-19,  xi.  9-xii.  6,  xv.,  xvii.  14-18,  xviii.,  xx.  7-18. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  second  section  of  the  book  appears 
to  have  its  origin  in  a  biography  of  the  prophet,  or  different 
biographical  notices  about  him. 

Another  indication  that  sections  one  and  two  have 
different  origins  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  contain,  in  chs. 
vii.  and  xxvi.,  two  different  accounts  of  the  same  occasion. 

In  Jeremiah,  then,  as  in  Isaiah,  we  appear  to  have 
the  same  three  elements :  prophecies  or  prophetic  poems 
of  the  prophet,  autobiographical  memoirs  written  by  him, 


XXL]  JEREMIAH  191 

biographical  notices  written  about  him  by  others.  But 
what  is  the  Uterary  history  of  these  elements?  The  first 
two  might  from  the  beginning  have  been  included  in  a 
single  book,  the  third  in  a  single  other  book,  and  the  two 
united  by  a  single  editor,  who  also  added  ch.  lii.  subse- 
quently. Yet  this,  the  simplest  hypothesis  which  would 
do  justice  to  the  facts  already  mentioned,  is  too  simple 
to  do  justice  to  other  facts,  however  far  these  remaining 
facts  may  fall  short  of  clearly  revealing  the  really  com- 
plicated Hterary  history  of  the  book  of  Jeremiah. 

The  numerous  titles  and  introductory  formulae  are  not 
all  of  such  a  kind  as  to  indicate  as  clearly  as  the  titles  in 
Isaiah  that  originally  independent  books  or  booklets  have 
been  incorporated  in  Jeremiah.  They  are  many  of  them 
more  of  the  nature  of  the  chronological  note  in  Is.  xiv.  28, 
and  may  be  explained  more  obviously  as  explanatory  notes 
within  a  collection  of  prophecies  than  as  titles  prefixed  to 
such  independent  collections.  That  many  independent 
collections  are  incorporated  in  Jeremiah  is  probable 
enough :  for  this  would  serve  to  account  for  the  extra- 
ordinary and  otherwise  inexplicable  disregard  of  chronology. 
Again,  as  the  analogy  of  the  brief  book  of  Obadiah  suggests, 
many  such  collections  may  have  been  quite  small.  But  it 
is  probable  that  Professor  Schmidt  in  the  Encyclopcedia 
Biblica  considerably  over-estimates  the  number  of  such 
collections  included  in  Jeremiah  when  he  suggests  that 
*  by  the  aid  of  the  superscriptions  the  following  collections 
may  be  recovered :  (1)  i.-xx. ;  (2)  xxi.-xxiv. ;  (3)  xxv., 
xlvi.-li. ;  (4)  xxvi.-xxix. ;  (5)  xxx.-xxxiii. ;  (6)  xxxiv.- 
xxxix. ;  (7)  xl.-xliv.' ;  and  that  many  of  these  in  turn 
contain  earHer  and  smaller  collections,  as,  for  example, 
iii.  6-vi.  30  ;  vii.-x. ;  xiv.-xvii. 

Beyond  the  differences  in  character  of  different  parts  of 
the  book  and  the  occurrence  of  several  titles,  there  are  other 
indications  of  difference  of  source.  Thus  chs.  xxvii.-xxix. 
are  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  the  book  by  a  preference 
for  the  longer  forms  of  proper  names  compounded  with 
Yahweh,  viz.  Yirmeyahu,  not  Yirmeyah,  and  the  use  of  the 


1»2  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oa 

really  incorrect  form  Nebuchadnezzar  instead  of  Nebu- 
chadrezzar. 

It  is  not  possible  here  to  follow  further  the  intricate 
paths  opened  up  by  these  features  of  the  book ;  but  we 
may  turn  now  to  a  further  consideration  of  the  origin  of  the 
book  in  the  Hght  of  the  definite  information  given  in  xxxvi. 
The  historical  value  of  this  chapter  has,  indeed,  occasionally 
been  called  in  question,  but  on  inadequate  grounds. 
The  general  significance  of  this  narrative  has  already  been 
discussed  in  ch.  xix. :  here  we  start  from  the  facts  there 
recorded  that  Jeremiah  first  prepared  a  book  of  his  teaching 
in  the  year  604,  and,  this  having  been  destroyed,  reproduced 
the  contents  with  additions  in  the  next  year,  603.  Unless 
this  book  completely  disappeared,  its  contents  must  survive, 
though  not  necessarily  entire,  within  the  existing  book  of 
Jeremiah ;  it  cannot,  of  course,  be  identical  with  the 
present  book,  for  that  contains  much  that  was  said,  and 
narratives  by  others  of  much  that  was  done,  by  Jeremiah 
after  that  date.  We  may  therefore  rule  out  at  once  as  in 
no  way  related  to  Jeremiah's  book  of  the  year  603  the 
biographical  narratives  in  xxvi.-xlv.  and  also  Hi.  More- 
over, all  the  prophecies  or  narratives  in  i.-xxv.  that  clearly 
presuppose  a  later  date  than  603  must  be  similarly  ruled 
out.  We  might  be  incHned  to  go  further,  and  rule  out 
certain  sections  within  i.-xxv.  and  the  whole  of  xlvi.-li., 
on  the  ground  that  in  them  Jeremiah  is  referred  to  in  the 
third  person,  whereas  the  autobiographical  character  of  the 
greater  part  of  i.-xxvi.  strengthens  what  would  be  our 
natural  expectation,  viz.  that  Jeremiah's  roll  of  603  wa« 
autobiographical  in  form  ;  but  it  is  necessary  to  allow  foi 
later  editorial  additions,  or  even  editorial  alterations  of  the 
first  person  into  the  third  (see  p.  100). 

The  following  scheme  will  serve  at  once  as  a  provisional 
chronological  distribution  of  the  prophecies  in  Jeremiah, 
and  as  an  indication  of  the  extent  to  which  the  contents  ol 
the  book  of  603  may  have  survived.  Passages  enumerated 
under  1  may  have  stood  in  that  book,  those  given  vmder  2-6 
cannot  have  done  so  : — 


nu.]  JEREMIAH  193 

1.  Belonging  to  Josiah's  reign,  or  to  the  opening  years 

of  Jehoiakim  (626-603)  :  i.  4-19,  iii.  6-18,  and 
probably  (most  of)  the  remainder  of  ii.-vi.,  vii. 
1-ix.  26,  X.  17-25,  xi.  1-xii.  6,  xxii.  10-19  (judg- 
ments on  Josiah,  Jehoahaz  and  Jehoiakim,  now 
grouped  with  judgments  on  two  later  kings  in 
xxi.  11-xxiii.  9).  Possibly  also  parts  of  xiv.- 
xvii.,  xviii.-xx.  also  belong  to  this  period. 

2.  Late  in  Jehoiakim's  reign,  between  604  and  597  : 

possibly  xiv.-xvii.  (except  19-27),  xviii.-xx.,  if 
these  are  not  earher  (see  under  1),  xii.  7-17. 

3.  Reign  of  Jehoiachin  (597  B.C.)  :   xxii.  20-37,  and 

parts  of  xiii.  (at  least  18,  19). 

4.  Reign  of   Zedekiah    (597-586)  :    xxiv.,  xxiii.  9-40 

(probably),  xxi.  1-10,  13  f.  (588  B.C.).  To  this 
period,  or  to  a  time  after  the  fall  of  the 
monarchy,  may  belong  the  genuine  fragments 
(e.g,  xxxi.  31-34)  preserved  among  much  later 
and  non- Jeremianic  matter  in  xxx.  f . 

5.  Finally,  we  may  classify  the  narratives  of  xxvi.-xlv. 

not  necessarily  according  to  the  time  at  which  they 
were  written,  but  according  to  the  time  to  which 
they  refer  :  this  is  in  many  cases  specified  : — 
Date  Chapter 

Jehoiakim  (608  B.C.)  xxvi. 

4  and  5  (604,  603)    xlv.,  xxxvi. 
(c.  600)  XXXV. 

Zedekiah  (c.  597)  xxvii.,  xxix. 

„       4  (593)  xxviii.,  U.  59-64. 

w       9-11  (688-686)         xxxiv.  1-7  (first  part  of  the 

siege  of  Jerusalem) ;  xxxvii. 
.  1-10  and  xxxiv.  8-22  (in- 
terval during  which  the 
siege  was  raised) ;  xxxvii. 
11-xxxviii.  28a,  xxxix.  15- 
18,  xxxii.,  xxxiii.  (second 
part  of  the  siege). 
After  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  xxxviii.  28b,  xxxix.  3-14,  xl.-xliv. 

N 


194  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

In  addition  to  the  fact  of  its  date  we  leam  from  Jer. 
xxxvi.  two  things  about  the  book  prepared  by  the 
prophet  in  604  :  (1)  the  general  subjects  of  it  included  not 
only  Judah  and  Israel,  but  also  *  all  the  nations/  xxxvi.  2  ; 
(2)  it  contained  the  specific  prophecy  that  the  king  of 
Babylon  would  come  and  destroy  Judah  (xxxvi.  29). 

The  specific  prophecy  of  xxxvi.  29  corresponds  not 
indeed  verbally,  but  in  substance  very  closely,  with  xxv. 
9,  10 ;  and  the  remainder  of  xxv.  apart  from  w.  12-14, 
which  predict  a  judgment  on  Babylon  and  interrupt  the 
connection  between  xxv.  11  and  xxv.  15,  consists  of  a 
prediction  of  the  judgment  which  Yahweh  is  about  to 
send  on  Judah  and  many  nations  by  the  agency  of  the 
Babylonians.  It  has  been  suggested  that  this  chapter 
formed  the  sole  contents  of  Jeremiah's  books  of  604  and 
603.  But  this  chapter  by  itself  hardly  satisfies  the 
description  that  Yahweh  gives  of  what  that  book  was  to 
contain  :  '  all  the  words  that  I  have  spoken  to  thee  con- 
cerning Israel  (LXX.  Jerusalem),  and  concerning  Judah, 
and  concerning  all  the  nations  .  .  .  from  the  days  of 
Josiah  unto  this  day  *  (xxxvi.  2) ;  for  the  still  existing  re- 
mains of  Jeremiah's  teaching  from  626-604,  as  indicated 
above,  are  far  wider  in  scope  than  ch.  xxv. 

The  theory  more  commonly  held  is  therefore  preferable  : 
the  books  of  604  and  603  contained  so  much  at  least  as 
now  survives  of  Jeremiah's  prophecies  belonging  to  the 
time  before  604.  Do  any  of  Jeremiah's  prophecies  of  that 
period  against  the  nations  survive  ?  The  fact  that 
Jeremiah  was  *  a  prophet  to  the  nations '  (i.  5)  was  indeed 
challenged  by  Stade  who  proposed  to  correct  the  phrase 
just  cited  into  '  a  prophet  to  the  nation  (viz.  Judah),'  and 
to  eliminate  the  clause  *  and  concerning  the  nations '  in 
xxxvi.  2.  Unless  we  accept  these  or  similar  suggestions, 
we  must  conclude  that  Jeremiah  did  utter  prophecies 
against  the  nations,  and  did  include  them  in  his  book ; 
then  there  would  be  a  presumption  that  the  section  of  the 
present  book,  viz.  chs.  xlvi.-li.,  which  contains  prophecies 
against  the  nations,  stood,  if  not  in  its  entirety,  yet  at  least 


XXI.]  JEREMIAH  196 

in  part,  in  the  book  of  604.  And  yet  a  closer  examination 
of  xlvi.-li.  reveals  much  that  cannot  have  been  written 
by  Jeremiah,  and  still  less  before  604.  Moreover  though 
some  of  the  definitions  of  time  (xlvi.  2,  13  ;  xlvii.  1 ;  xlix. 
25)  are  either  definitely  consistent,  or  at  least  not  clearly 
inconsistent,  with  a  date  before  604,  others  actually  refer 
two  sections  to  a  date  later  than  604  (see  xlix.  34,  li.  59). 

Among  the  sections  of  xlvi.-H.  that  are  most  clearly 
not  the  work  of  Jeremiah  is  1.  1-li.  58  :  the  situation  pre- 
supposed is  not  earher  than  the  end  of  the  Exile,  say 
c.  540  ;  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  in  586  is  long  past, 
and  still  unavenged  (1.  28,  li.  11,  51),  but  the  destruction 
of  Babylon  is  now  imminent.  On  these  and  other  grounds 
the  genuineness  of  this  section  is  now  generally  denied. 
Another  very  doubtful  section  is  xlyiii.,  for  this  incor- 
porates large  parts  of  an  elegy  which  also  appears,  com- 
bined with  other  matter,  in  Is.  xv.  f. ;  the  date  of  the 
elegy  is  not  improbably  c.  470.  Into  a  detailed  examination 
of  the  remainder  of  xlvi.-li.  it  is  impossible  to  enter  here  ; 
over  against  the  presumption  in  favour  of  genuineness 
already  mentioned  must  be  set  the  fact  that  later  sections 
have  certainly  gained  places  here.  Yet  it  is  possible  to 
discover  in  some  of  the  oracles  a  nucleus  at  least  which 
cannot  be  positively  shown  to  contain  anything  incon- 
sistent with  Jeremiah's  authorship. 

Before  referring  to  doubtful  passages  in  other  parts  of 
the  book,  it  will  be  convenient  to  refer  briefly  to  the  very 
important  differences  between  the  Hebrew  text  and  the 
Greek  version. 

The  Greek  version  differs  from  the  Hebrew  text  first 
of  all  in  its  arrangement ;  the  second  and  third  sections 
of  the  book  change  places  :  the  prophecies  on  the  nations 
(xlvi.-h.)  together  with  xxv.  15-36  immediately  follow  the 
prophecies  on  Judah  (i.-xxv.  13),  thus  leaving  the  mainly 
narrative  section  (xxvi.-xlv.)  to  be  rounded  off  with  the 
narrative  extract  from  Kings.  Further,  the  order  within 
the  section  containing  the  foreign  prophecies  differs  :  the 
order  in  the  Hebrew  text  is  1  Egypt ;  2  PhiHstine ;  3  Moab ; 


196  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch 

4  Ammon ;  6  Edom  ;  6  Damascus  ;  7  Kedar ;  8  Elam  ; 
9  Babylon  :  in  the  Greek  version  the  order  is  8,  1,  9,  2,  5, 
4,  7,  6,  3. 

In  addition  to  these  remarkable  differences  of  arrange- 
ment, there  are  striking  differences  in  the  text  itself ; 
the  Greek  version  occasionally  has  words  or  clauses  not 
found  in  the  Hebrew  text,  but  far  more  often  words  and 
clauses,  and  occasionally  sections,  of  the  Hebrew  text  are 
absent  from  the  Greek  version,  so  that  the  version  repre- 
sents a  text  shorter  by  an  eighth  than  the  Hebrew  text. 

Very  different  views  have  been  taken  as  to  the  relative 
merits  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  texts  or  recensions ; 
but  one  thing  is  clear :  in  certain  quarters  the  text  of 
Jeremiah  was  subject  down  to  a  relatively  late  date  to  a 
very  free  treatment ;  nor  is  there  much  doubt  that  some 
and  probably  most  of  the  sections  found  in  the  Hebrew, 
but  not  in  the  Greek,  are  accretions.  Such  sections  absent 
from  the  Greek  version  are  viii.  lOa^-12  ;  xi.  7-8ba  ;  xxix. 
16-20;  XXX.  10,  11,  15,  22;  xxxiii.  14-26.  There  are 
other  sections  which,  though  present  both  in  the  Hebrew 
and  Greek  texts,  are  also  probably  the  work  not  of  Jeremiah 
but  of  a  later  age :  such  are  (1)  x.  1-16,  which  interrupts 
the  connection  between  ix.  22  and  x.  17,  and  has  itself 
received  accretions,  certainly  the  Aramaic  gloss  in  x.  11, 
and  perhaps  also  certain  verses  absent  from  the  Greek 
version ;  the  section  seems  to  presuppose  Is.  xl.-lv.  and 
consequently  to  have  been  written  at  earUest  at  the  very 
end  of  the  Exile ;  (2)  xvii.  19-27  (cp.  Is.  Ivi.  1-8,  Iviii. 
13  ;  Neh.  xiii.  15-22) ;  (3)  large  parts  of  xxx.,  xxxi.,  though 
scarcely  xxxi.  31-34,  a  passage  which  is  entirely  in  harmony 
with  Jeremiah*8  personaUty  and  teaching ;  (4)  xxxii.  17-23, 
and  much  else  in  xxxii.,  xxxiii. 

The  biographical  chapters  in  xxvi.-xlv.  make  no  claim 
to  be,  and  are  obviously  not,  the  work  of  Jeremiah ;  but 
they  may  be  in  large  part  the  work  of  contemporaries — 
possibly  though  not  necessarily  of  Baruch. 

Thus  in  brief  the  history  of  the  book  of  Jeremiah  may  be 
summarised  as  follow^ :    the  prophet's  teaching  for  thi) 


XXL]  JEREMIAH  197 

previous  twenty-three  years,  already  in  part  expressed  in 
poems,  was  summarised  in  a  book  which  also  contained 
some  autobiographical  matter :  this  book  was  written  in 
604  and  perished  ;  it  was  re- written  and  expanded  in  603. 
Between  603  and  586  or  later,  Jeremiah  continued  to  teach, 
still  recording  his  teaching  in  his  poems,  and,  probably 
whether  we  care  to  cite  xxx.  2  in  evidence  or  not,  from 
time  to  time  committing  these  to  writing.  But  especially 
during  this  period  he  had  gathered  round  him  disciples, 
some  of  whom  are  most  Ukely  the  authors  of  the  main 
body  of  the  biographical  portions  of  Jeremiah  (in  xxvi.-xlv.). 
Both  the  books  of  prophecies  prepared  by  Jeremiah  and 
of  biographies  by  his  disciples  suffered  interpolation  and 
rearrangement  either  before  or  after,  or  both  before  and 
after,  they  were  brought  together  into  a  single  book. 
This  collection  of  material  has  reached  us  in  two  forms — 
the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek — which  are  differently  arranged, 
and  differ  in  extent.  One  or  other  of  these  forms  may 
have  continued  open  to  accretion  and  interpolation  till 
well  into  the  second  century  B.C.  '  Jeremiah  *  was  known 
to  Ben  Sirach  in  180  B.C.,  but  his  allusion  imfortunately 
only  covers  the  first  chapter  of  the  present  book  :  whether 
the  book  was  known  to  him  in  a  form  more  nearly  approach*' 
ing  the  Greek  or  the  Hebrew  does  not  appear. 


198   CRITICAL  LNTRODUCriON  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 


CHAPTER  XXII 

EZEKIEL 

The  reasons  which  led  the  Rabbis  to  conclude  that  *  the 
men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  wrote  Ezekiel '  are  unknown  : 
but  the  conclusion  itself  is  a  curiosity,  for  no  other  book 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  distinguished  by  such  decisive 
marks  of  imity  of  authorship  and  integrity  as  this.  It  is 
written  throughout,  with  the  exception  of  i.  2  f .  (cp.  xxiv. 
24),  in  the  first  person ;  the  same  strongly  individuaUsed 
style  characterises  all  parts  ahke ;  and  it  forms  a  well- 
articulated  whole. 

The  book  of  Ezekiel  is  occupied  with  two  closely  related 
subjects — the  approaching  fall  of  Jerusalem,  and  the 
restoration  of  Jerusalem  after  its  fall :  in  i.-xxiv.  prophecies 
deUvered  before  the  fall  of  the  city  in  586  B.C.  are  gathered 
together ;  these  agree  in  predicting  that  the  Babylonians 
will  capture  Jerusalem  and  overthrow  the  Jewish  state, 
and  that  thus  Yahweh  will  vindicate  his  honour  and 
hoHness  against  his  own  people  who  by  their  iniquities 
have  shown  throughout  their  history  a  persistent  disregard 
for  him.  The  second  half  of  the  book  is  devoted  to  the 
restoration  of  Jerusalem  and  of  the  Jewish  community, 
which  will  be  brought  about  by  Yahweh  in  order  that  he 
may  vindicate  his  honour  and  power  in  the  eyes  of  the 
world.  This  part  of  the  book  falls  into  three  sections ; 
chs.  iLxv.-xxxii.  contain  the  judgments  on  several  nations, 
Ammon,  Moab,  Edom,  Philistia,  Tyre  and  Egypt,  which 
may  be  regarded  as  preparatory  to  the  restoration  of  the 
Jews ;   xxxiii.-xxziz.  deal  with  the  re-creation  of  the  land 


xxn.]  EZEKIEL  199 

and  people ;  xl.-xlviii.  with  the  constitution  of  the  new 
ommunity. 

The  book  of  Ezekiel  claims  to  be,  and  is,  a  work  of  the 
first  part  of  the  sixth  century  B.C.  The  genuineness  of  the 
book  has  not,  indeed,  passed  quite  so  unchallenged  as  its 
integrity.  Now  and  again  it  has  been  suggested  that  the 
book  was  written  in  the  fifth,  or  the  second,  or  even  the 
first  century  B.C. !  But  the  insufficiency  of  the  reasons 
advanced .  in  favour  of  these  theories  in  reahty  serves 
only  to  enforce  the  claims  which  the  book  itself  most 
clearly  makes.  It  is  the  work  of  Ezekiel,  a  priest,  who 
was  one  of  the  captives  of  the  year  597  B.C.  It  fell  to  his 
lot  to  settle  at  Tell-abib  on  the  Great  Canal  (R.V.  the  river 
Chebar).  Here,  in  the  heart  of  Babylonia,  at  a  spot  in 
easy  communciation  with  most  of  the  important  towns  of 
the  country,  Ezekiel  lived  among  his  fellow  captives.  To 
them,  especially  to  their  elders  who  sought  him  out  {e.g. 
XX.  1  ff.),  in  the  six  years  preceding  the  event,  Ezekiel 
predicted  and  explained  the  approaching  fall  of  Jerusalem. 
Still  a  captive  in  Babylonia  fourteen  years  after  the  fall 
of  Jerusalem,  in  the  year  572  B.C.,  he  sketched  out  the 
constitution  for  the  future  community  whose  centre  was 
to  be  the  Temple  of  Yahweh  in  Sion. 

In  discussing  the  origin  of  the  book  of  Ezekiel,  the  ques- 
tion of  sources  arises  just  as  Httle  as  the  question  of  integ- 
rity. His  mind  worked  with  a  considerable  variety  of 
material ;  but  it  worked  freely,  not  to  say  creatively ;  as 
a  priest  he  was  famiUar  with  the  structure  of  the  Temple 
that  was  destroyed  in  586,  and  with  the  character  of  its 
services  and  administration  ;  as  a  prophet  he  was  doubtless 
familiar  with  the  words  of  his  predecessors,  and  he  shares 
with  his  older  contemporary  Jeremiah  an  increasing  per- 
ception of  the  religious  value  of  the  individual ;  as  a 
resident  in  Babylonia  he  was  open  to  the  influence  of 
Babylonian  ideas,  hterature,  and  s5miboUsm,  and  as  chapter 
i.,  for  example,  shows,  he  was  not  impervious  to  it.  But 
he  incorporates  no  ancient  priestly  document,  no  earlier 
prophetic  oracle,  no  Babylonian  story  in  his  book ;  he  re- 


200   CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

moulds  his  material,  whencesoever  derived,  into  a  work 
that  bears  throughout  the  stamp  of  his  own  personality. 

Only  one  question  of  origin  arises  :  the  latest  date  men- 
tioned in  the  book  is  the  twenty-seventh  year  (after  the 
captivity  of  Jehoiachin),  i.e.  570  B.C. ;  but  Ezekiel's  earliest 
teaching,  which  forms  the  substance  of  the  first  half  of  the 
book,  was  given  in  the  years  592-586.  Did  he  commit 
this  earlier  teaching  to  writing  at  the  time  ?  Were  his 
predictions  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  written  as  well  as 
spoken  before  the  actual  fall  of  the  city  ?  If  so,  how  does 
the  present  book  stand  related  to  such  earlier  records  of 
Ezekiel  ?  The  series  of  dates  with  which  the  book  is 
provided,  and  the  very  limited  amount  of  the  book  that 
is  in  poetical  form,  both  have  a  bearing  on  these  questions. 

The  dates  given  in  the  book  may  be  tabulated  as  follows  : 
the  first  column  containing  the  reference,  the  second  the 
year  and  month  given  in  the  text  by  the  era  of  the  cap- 
tivity, the  third  the  year  b.o.  : — 


Year  and  Month 

of  Captivity. 

S.O. 

i.  (1,)  2 

6.4 

692. 

July. 

viii.  1 

6.6 

691. 

September. 

XX.  1 

7.6 

690. 

August. 

xxiv.  1 

0.10 

687. 

January. 

xxvi.  1 

11 

686. 

April,  or  later. 

xxix.  1 

10.10 

686. 

January. 

xxix.  17 

27.1 

670. 

ApriL 

XXX.  20 

11.1 

686. 

April 

xxxi.  1 

11.3 

686. 

June. 

xxxii.  1 

12.12 

684. 

March. 

xxxii.  17 

12  (.12) 

(685-)  684  (March). 

xxxiii.  21 

12.10  [11.10] 

684  [ 

586].    January. 

xLl 

26.(1) 

672. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  table  that  the  book  is  in  the 
main  arranged  in  chronological  order :  chapter  xxxii., 
though  two,  or  (adopting  a  necessary  correction  of  the  text 
in  xxxiii.  21)  fourteen,  months  later  than  the  section  Intro* 


xxn.]  EZEKIEL  201 

duced  by  xxxiii.  21,  stands  before  it  for  an  obvious  reason  ; 
it  is  a  prophecy  concerning  the  nations,  and  chronological 
sequence  is  disregarded  in  order  to  keep  all  the  prophecies 
concerning  the  nations  together  in  xxv.-xxxii.  For  the 
same  very  sufficient  reason  xxix.  17  &.  is  inserted  in  a 
section  dated  sixteen  years  earlier.  Why  xxvi.  1  ff.  precedes 
xxix.  1  ff.  is  not  obvious.  But  we  seem  justified  in  con- 
cluding that  unless  by  a  definite  date  he  suggested  the 
contrary,  Ezekiel  intended  the  order  to  be  chronological. 

Are  we  then  to  assume  that  i.-vii.  is  a  section  written 
by  Ezekiel  in  692-591,  viii.-xix.  another  written  in  591- 
590,  and  so  on,  and  that  towards  the  end  of  his  life 
he  simply  put  together  these  various  note-books  ?  The 
general  uniformity  of  style,  and  the  careful  arrangement 
of  the  book,  and  its  very  real  unity,  are  most  unfavourable 
to  such  a  theory.  On  the  other  hand,  it  seems  unnecessary 
to  treat  the  dates  merely  as  part  of  the  Hterary  setting  of 
the  book.  It  is  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  Ezekiel 
had  some  record  of  his  teaching  at  specific  times  in  his 
career,  that  the  various  sections  substantially  reproduce 
that  teaching,  but  that  the  entire  book  was  planned  and 
written  after  572,  and,  indeed,  after  570,  unless  we  prefer 
to  suppose  that  the  prophet's  correction  (xxix.  17-24)  in 
570  of  what  he  had  said  erroneously  (xxvi.  12)  in  586  was 
inserted  by  himself  in  a  work  which  he  had  completed  as 
early  as  572.  While  the  various  sections  of  the  book  sub- 
stantially and  generally  reproduce  the  teaching  of  Ezekiel 
at  the  dates  specified,  occasional  exceptions  to  this  rule 
certainly  seem  to  occur,  and  these,  too,  are  most  naturally 
explained  if  we  assume  a  free  construction  of  the  book,  on 
the  basis  of  some  definite  records,  at  the  close  of  Ezekiel's 
career.  Such  an  exception  is  the  allusion  to  Zedekiah's 
breach  of  faith  with  Nebuchadnezzar  (xvii.  15-18),  which 
took  place  after  591,  the  date  assigned  to  viii-xix. 

The  practice  adopted  by  the  earlier  prophets  of  summar- 
ising their  teaching  in  poems  was  followed  to  a  very  sHght 
extent  by  Ezekiel.  The  elegies  in  xix.,  xxvi.  17,  xxvii.  3  ff., 
32-36  are  poems ;  but  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  book 


202  CRITIGAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

is  prose.  It  is  worth  observing,  however,  that  ch.  xvii.,  in 
which  some  have  detected  a  different  expectation  from  that 
which  is  expressed  in  xl.-xlviii.  with  regard  to  the  place  of 
the  monarchy  in  the  restored  commmiity,  is,  if  not  actually 
throughout  in  poetical  form,  yet  bound  together  by  its 
allegorical  form.  It  is  reasonable  to  infer  that  this  parable 
stands  much  as  it  was  propounded  in  the  first  instance  to 
the  house  of  Israel  (zvii.  2)  at  some  time  before  586. 


xxm.]  THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS 

The  fourth  collection  of  Hebrew  prophetic  Kterature,  *  The 
Twelve,'  is  professedly  more  miscellaneous  than  any  of  the 
other  three — ^Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel.  It  may  not, 
indeed,  contain  many  more  distinct  elements  than  Isaiah, 
but  it  differs  from  Isaiah  in  this,  that  the  several  sections 
of  the  book  are  referred  by  name  to  different  prophets. 

The  arrangement  of  this  collection  appears  to  have  been 
determined  primarily  by  chronological  considerations.  The 
editor,  doubtless,  identified  the  author  of  the  book  of  Jonah 
with  the  prophet  of  that  name  mentioned  in  2  Kings  xiv.  25 
as  a  contemporary  of  Jeroboam  n.,  who  was  Hving  and 
reigning  in  the  first  half  of  the  eighth  century  B.C. ;  for 
less  obvious  reasons  he  probably  regarded  Obadiah  and  Joel 
as  prophets  of  the  same  period.  Thus  the  collection  opens 
with  the  work  of  six  prophets,  Hosea,  Joel,  Amos,  Obadiah, 
Jonah,  Micah,  who  actually  lived,  or  were  regarded  as 
having  Hved,  in  the  eighth  centm^y  B.C. ;  then  follow 
three,  Nahum,  Habakkuk,  Zephaniah,  who  Hved  in  the 
seventh  century ;  then  two,  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  who 
prophesied  in  620-518 ;  and  finally  the  book  of  Malachi, 
a  prophet  of  the  fifth  century,  closes  the  volume. 

The  order  of  the  last  six  prophets  is  the  same  in  the  Greek 
version,  but  the  first  six  appear  in  a  different  order,  viz. 
Hosea,  Amos,  Micah,  Joel,  Obadiah,  Jonah. 

The  fact  that  the  work  of  twelve  prophets  who  are  named 
gave  its  title  to  the  collection,  probably  not  long  after  it 
came  into  existence,  is  no  proof  that  the  collection  does  not 
also  contain  anonymous  prophecies ;  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
such  prophecies  do  occur  in  Zechariah  ix,-xiv. 


204  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

The  dates  apparently  attributed  to  the  several  books  by 
the  editor  are  not  in  all  cases  the  actual  dates  of  the  book. 
Anticipating  the  detailed  discussions  we  may  date  the 
several  prophets  as  follows :  Amos,  Hosea,  IVCcah  in  the 
eighth  century;  Zephaniah,  Habakkuk,  Nahum  in  the 
seventh  century ;  Haggai  and  Zechariah  in  the  sixth 
century ;  Malachi  and  Obadiah  (?)  in  the  fifth ;  Joel, 
Jonah,  and  Zech.  ix.-xiv.  later  in  the  post-exilic  period. 

*  The  Twelve/  then,  is  a  collection  of  prophetic  hterature, 
or  of  earUer  collections  of  prophetic  Hterature,  extending 
over  many  centuries,  viz.  from  the  eighth  century  down 
to  probably  the  third  (see  p.  229).  Much  of  the  hterature, 
and  some  of  the  earUer  collections,  here  preserved,  must 
then  have  had  a  long  history  before  it  found  its  place  in 
*  The  Twelve.*  Some  of  the  fortunes  of  this  history  can  be 
traced,  and  will  be  referred  to  in  the  detailed  discussion* 
that  follow. 

1.   HOSBA 

The  book  of  Hosea  shares  with  that  of  Amos  the  pecuh- 
arity  of  being  mainly,  if  not  in  its  original  form  exclusively, 
addressed  to  or  concerned  with  the  northern  kingdom  of 
Israel,  or,  as  the  prophet  commonly  calls  it,  Ephraim.  But 
Hosea,  unhke  Amos,  is  a  subject  of  the  northern  kingdom  : 
the  king  of  Samaria  is  his  king  (vii.  6).  His  book,  there- 
fore, is  a  piece  of  Ephraimite  literature — the  only  book  of 
a  northern  prophet  that  has  survived. 

Hosea  hved  and  prophesied  in  part  before  the  fall  of  the 
house  of  Jehu  (i.  4),  which  took  place  c.  746  b.o.  His  book 
and  that  of  Amos,  written  probably  somewhat  earher,  are 
the  earhest  surviving  books  of  Hebrew  prophecy. 

The  book  of  Hosea  consists  mainly  of  a  collection  of 
prophetic  poems :  but  the  first  and  third  chapters  (in 
prose)  purport  to  relate  incidents  in  his  fife,  partly  (ch.  i.) 
in  the  third,  partly  (ch.  iii.)  in  the  first  person.  Both  these 
chapters  have  at  times  been  regarded  as  allegory,  but 
whatever  be  the  truth  about  ch.  iii.,  ch.  i.  must  bo  regarded 
as  a  record  of  certain  outward  facts  and  certain  inner 


xxm.]  THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS:  HOSEA  205 

experiences  of  the  prophet.  Hosea  had  control  over  the 
names  of  his  cliildren,  and,  Uke  Isaiah,  used  the  opportunity 
to  make  them  express  some  element  in  his  prophetic  teach- 
ing ;  but  Jezreel,  Lo-ruhamah,  Lo-ammi  are  on  this 
account  no  more  to  be  accounted  mere  allegorical  figures 
than  are  Isaiah's  children.  Shear- Yashub  and  Maher-shalal- 
hash-baz.  And  the  fact  that  the  names  of  his  wife  and 
father-in-law,  over  which  he  would  have  had  no  control,  have 
no  meaning  relevant  to  his  teaching,  is  the  strongest 
possible  proof  that  father-in-law,  wife,  and  children  were 
one  and  aU  actual  persons.  And  so  the  allusion  to  the 
weaning  of  Lo-ruhamah  in  i.  8  would  be  meaningless 
in  allegory,  but  natural  enough  in  a  father's  record  of  his 
family  life. 

We  may  then  use  the  facts  of  Hosea's  hfe  recorded  in 
ch.  i.  to  throw  light  on  the  origin  of  the  book.  When  the 
prophet's  first  child  was  born  the  house  of  Jehu  was  still 
on  the  throne  :  whether  the  other  children  were  also  bom 
before  the  overthrow  of  that  house  is  less  clear.  In  any 
case,  we  may  assume  that  by  the  time  of  Jezreel's  birth 
Hosea  had  already  appeared  as  a  public  teacher,  denounc- 
ing, hke  Amos,  inhumanity,  and  attacking  the  reigning  house 
which  had  been  established  with  bloodshed,  and  under 
which  cruelty  and  injustice  were  now  prevalent.  But  the 
same  narrative  that  records  the  birth  of  Jezreel,  and  gives 
a  hint  of  the  character  of  Hosea's  teaching  at  the  time,  also 
records  the  birth  of  the  next  two  children,  with  a  hint  that 
between  the  birth  of  the  second  and  the  third  something 
hke  three  years  elapsed.  Consequently  something  Hke 
five  years  at  least  lay  between  Hosea's  marriage,  something 
Uke  four  years  at  least  between  the  birth  of  Jezreel  and 
Hosea's  teaching  of  which  that  name  formed  a  text,  and 
the  record  of  these  events  as  given  in  ch.  i.  The  interval 
may  have  been  longer,  for  we  have  no  reason  to  conclude 
that  Hosea  wrote  the  narrative  immediately  after  Lo- 
ammi's  birth.  This  being  so,  it  is  quite  unnecessary  to 
infer  that  chs.  i.-iii.  were  written  earUer  than  iv.-xiv.,  or 
that  in  every  respect  they  record  an  earlier  type  of  teaching. 


206   CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 

It  is,  indeed,  improbable  that  Hosea  realised  before  marriage 
that  his  wife  either  was  unchaste  or  would  prove  unfaithful ; 
and  consequently  we  cannot  safely  assume  that  he  began 
to  teach  so  early  as  his  marriage  that  *  the  land  doth 
commit  great  whoredom  in  departing  from  Yahweh.'  But 
he  had  certainly  reaUsed  the  character  of  his  wife,  and 
become  possessed  of  the  thought  of  Ephraim's  unfaithful- 
ness to  Yahweh,  before  he  wrote  ch.  i. ;  the  same  thought 
reappears  e,g,  in  iv. 

It  is  then  not  impossible,  nor  improbable,  that  Hosea 
wrote  the  record  of  his  life  and  committed  his  prophetic 
poems  to  writing  at  one  and  the  same  time.  Several  of  the 
poems  point  to  the  period  of  anarchy  that  followed  the 
overthrow  of  the  house  of  Jehu,  when  king  succeeded  king 
with  rapidity,  and  rival  factions  maintained  the  advantage 
of  reUance  on  Assyria  or  Egypt ;  see  v.  13,  vii.  11,  viii.  9, 
xii.  1  :  vii.  3-7,  viii.  4.  In  v.  13,  x.  6,  6  there  is  probably  a 
specific  allusion  to  the  tribute  paid  by  Menahem  to  Tiglath- 
pileser  in  738  B.C.  Since  the  book  imphes  no  knowledge  of 
the  Syro-Ephraimitish  war,  we  may  infer  that  Hosea  com- 
piled his  book  before  735  :  it  contained  the  history  of  his 
life  or  the  substance  of  his  teaching  for  some  ten  years  at 
least. 

Hosea'a  book  does  not  appear  to  have  reached  us  un- 
modified. Nor  is  this  surprising  :  it  is  a  piece  of  prophecy 
addressed  to  the  northern  kingdom  in  the  eighth  century  ; 
it  owes  its  survival  to  post-exilic  collectors  or  editors  of 
the  southern  kingdom,  and  apparently  has  undergone  a 
Judaean  revision.  To  this  revision  may  be  attributed  the 
title,  for  an  Ephraimite  would  scarcely  date  his  book  by 
reference  to  a  series  of  Jeunsh  kings,  and  still  less  equate 
with  Jeroboam  of  the  northern  kingdom  and  his  auccessorSt 
Uzziah,  who  himself  outlived  Jeroboam.  Elsewhere  a 
Jewish  editor  may  have  substituted  Judah  where  Israel 
stood  in  the  original  text,  with  a  view  to  adapting  an  ancient 
Ephraimite  prophecy  to  later  Jewish  needs  :  the  play  On 
names  in  xii.  3,  which  may  be  roughly  represented  by 
rendering  *  in  the  womb  he  Jacobed  his  brother,  and  in 


xxm.]  THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS:  JOEL  207 

his  manhood  Israeled  with  God/  suggests  that  Israel  and 
Jacob  were  the  names  originally  employed  in  xii.  3,  not  as 
now  Judah  and  Jacob.  Similar  alterations  may  have 
taken  place  in  v.  10,  12,  13,  14 ;  vi.  4 ;  xii.  2 ;  and  the 
following  may  be  Jewish  additions  to  or  modifications  of 
Hosea's  words  :  1.  7, 1.  10-ii.  1,  the  words  *  and  David  their 
king '  in  iii.  6  (cp.  Jer.  xxx.  9),  iv.  15a,  v.  5  (last  clause), 
vi.  11,  viii.  14,  x.  11,  xi.  12b. 

Some  at  least  of  the  passages  of  promise,  i.  7,  i.  10- 
ii.  1,  ii.  14,  23,  iii.  1-5  (if  an  allegory  of  the  restoration  of  the 
people),  V.  15,  vi.  3,  xi.  10,  11,  xiv.,  may  be  additions  to 
Hosea's  prophecies ;  yet  (1)  it  is  not  safe  to  assume  that 
Hosea  cannot  at  any  time  or  to  any  circle  of  his  hearers 
have  held  out  such  hopes,  and  then  have  given  them  a 
place  in  his  book  (cp.  p.  187),  and  (2)  some  of  these  passages 
(e.g.  ch.  xiv.)  savour  strongly  of  Hosea's  style.  Of  the 
passages  enumerated  perhaps  i,  7  and  i.  10-ii.  1  are  most 
likely  to  be  later  additions. 


2.  Joel 

The  title  gives  no  indication  of  the  time  at  which  this 
book  was  written.  It  stands  indeed  among  the  group  of 
six  books  probably  regarded  by  the  compilers  of  the 
Twelve  (cp.  p.  203)  as  pre-exilic :  but  it  may  owe  its  position, 
and  consequently  this  imphcit  theory  of  its  date,  to  nothing 
more  relevant  than  the  repetition  of  iii.  16  in  Amos  i.  2. 
Internal  evidence  indicates  that  the  book  was  written 
after  the  Exile. 

The  first  half  of  the  book,  i.  2-ii.  17  (23),  which  many 
ancient  and  a  few,  but  very  few,  modem  expositors  have 
erroneously  regarded  as  allegorical,  describes  the  actual 
circumstances  out  of  which  the  book  sprang.  Severe 
visitations  of  locusts  in  successive  (cp.  ii.  25)  years,  and 
severe  drought  had  led  to  great  scarcity,  so  that  the  daily 
sacrifices  in  the  Temple  could  not  be  maintained.  These 
disasters  suggested  that  the  final  day  of  Yahweh  might  be 
approaching  (i.  15,  ii.  1  ff.),  when  further  hordes  of  locusts, 


208  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [cjh. 

resembling  a  well  disciplined  and  irresistible  army,  with 
Yahweh  at  their  head,  would  advance  and  strike  terror 
into  all  hearts  (ii.  1-11).  A  solemn  fast  and  penitence  on 
the  part  of  the  whole  people  might,  it  was  felt,  turn  aside 
this  last  great  judgment :  and  it  actually  did  do  so. 
Yahweh  took  pity  on  his  people  (ii.  18) ;  rain  has  already 
fallen,*  and  there  is  promise  of  good  harvests  (ii.  19-22). 
The  latter  half  of  the  book  is  a  prediction,  immediately, 
of  good  harvests,  and,  thereafter,  of  a  day  of  Yahweh  in 
which  the  Jews  shall  escape  and  receive  Yahweh's  spirit, 
but  all  nations  shall  be  gathered  together  before  Jerusalem 
and  there  condemned  to  punishment  for  their  treatment 
of  the  Jews  (ii.  28-iii.  21). 

The  experiences  which  the  prophet  had  shared  with  his 
people  and  which  he  so  vividly  describes,  do  not  serve  to 
date  the  prophecy  :  for  visitations  of  locusts  and  droughts 
recur  in  all  periods.  The  date  must,  then,  be  determined 
by  the  conditions  which  are  the  subject  of  allusion  merely, 
and  by  the  language  and  the  Uterary  affinities  of  the 
prophecy.  The  historical  background,  though  it  has  been, 
and  stiU  is  occasionally,  interpreted  differently,  seems 
clearly  to  be  that  of  the  post-exilic  period,  perhaps  in 
particular  of  about  400  B.o.  The  dispersion  of  the  Jews 
among  the  nations,  and  the  occupation  of  Judah  by  other 
people  (iii.  1,  2)  can  scarcely  refer  to  anything  but  the 
events  of  586  b.o.  and  those  that  followed.  But  the 
(second)  Temple  is  standing,  and  the  cultus  has  been 
regularly  administered  till  the  famine  occasioned  by  the 
disasters  interrupted  the  daily  sacrifice.  This  carries  the 
book  down  below  616  B.C.,  when  the  Temple  was  com- 
pleted ;  and  if  we  may  infer  from  the  reference  in  ii.  9  to 
the  (city-)  wall  that  the  walls  also  of  Jerusalem  were  already 
restored,  the  book  was  written  after  Nehemiah  (c.  445). 
There  is  much  else  that  admirably  fits  the  post-exilio 
situation,  and  can  with  difficulty,  if  at  all,  be  reconciled  with 
a  pre-exilic  date :  for  example,  priests  and  elders  are 
mentioned,  but  there  is  no  allusion  to  either  king  or  princes  ; 

>  In  il  23  render  hath  given,  not  giveth  {R.V.). 


xxin.]  THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS:  JOEL  209 

and  the  assembly  of  the  whole  people  in  the  Temple  on 
Sion,  which  is  more  than  once  referred  to,  far  more  closely 
resembles  that  which  gathered  round  Ezra  (Neh.  viii.), 
than  the  community  addressed  by  Bang  Josiah  (2  Kings 
xxiii.).  There  are  allusions  to  Tyre,  Sidon,  the  Philistines, 
the  Greeks,  Egypt,  Edom,  and  the  Sabaeans,  but  no  allusion 
to  either  Assyria  or  Babylon,  though  one  of  these  powers  is 
mentioned  by  name  in  every  pre-exiHo  prophet  except 
Amos,  and  by  him  Assyria,  though  unnamed,  is  unmistak- 
ably described.  Joel  seems  rather  to  be  the  spokesman  of 
his  people,  than,  Uke  most  of  the  pre-exiHc  prophets,  one 
who  stands  over  against  them :  and  though  the  book  con- 
tains a  general  call  to  repentance,  it  contains  no  condem- 
nation of  oppression  and  injustice,  on  the  one  hand,  or  of 
idolatry  on  the  other.  The  cessation  of  the  daily  sacrifice 
is  as  distressing  to  Joel  as  it  was  to  the  author  of  Daniel. 

Most  of  those  who  have  maintained  a  pre-exiHc  date, 
though  Konig  in  arguing  for  the  end  of  the  seventh  century 
forms  an  exception,  have  sought  to  explain  the  book  by 
the  circumstances  of  the  minority  of  Joash  (2  Kings  xii.) ; 
but  though  the  early  date  (ninth  century)  would  explain 
the  absence  of  reference  to  Assyria,  and  the  regency  of 
the  high  priest  might  just  possibly  account  for  the  absence 
of  any  allusion  to  a  king,  it  does  not  really  explain  the 
total  situation  implied  by  the  book,  and  is  very  strongly 
opposed  by  the  language  and  Kterary  affinities. 

The  argument  from  the  style  and  language  can  be  but 
barely  indicated  :  Uke  Is.  xxiv.-xxvii.,  Joel  has  many  of  the 
quahties  of  earlier  and  good  prophetic  style,  but  also 
contains  several  words,  forms  or  phrases  that  together 
point  strongly  away  from  the  ninth  and  even  from  the 
seventh  century.  Everything,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
entirely  explained  if  we  regard  Joel  as  the  work  of  a  post- 
exilic  writer  familiar  with  the  earUer  Uterature  and 
influenced  by  it. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  either  Joel  was  greatly  influenced 
by  earlier  writers,  or,  himself  living  early,  his  prophecy  was 
remarkably  influential  over  a  large  number  of  later  writers. 


210  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

If  Joel  lived  in  the  ninth  century  then  Amos,  '  Isaiah ' 
(ii.  4),  Micah,  Nahum,  Zephaniah,  Obadiah,  Ezekiel, 
Deutero-Isaiah,  Malachi,  the  author  of  Is.  xiii.,  and  some 
Psahnists  all  quoted  from  this  short  prophecy ;  on  the 
other  hand,  if  he  lived  about  400  B.C.,  it  is  he  who  quotes 
from  the  authors  and  writings  named.  Which  is  the  more 
probable  alternative,  even  if  there  was  nothing  else  (as 
there  is  much)  to  be  said  on  the  point  ?  Exactly  the  same 
alternative  cannot,  of  course,  be  presented  if  it  be  sug- 
gested that  Joel  hved  in  the  seventh  century,  yet  this 
consideration  must  be  faced  even  then  :  Joel  ii.  27  consists 
of  a  combination  of  phrases  that  occur  separately  in 
Deutero-Isaiah  (e.g.  Is.  xlv.  5),  Ezek.  (e.g.  xxxix.  28)  and 
Lev.  (e.g.  xviii.  2) ;  the  phrases  common  to  this  passage 
in  Joel  and  Ezekiel  and  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.  (H)  are  strikingly 
characteristic  of  Ezekiel  and  Leviticus  respectively ;  that 
common  to  Joel  and  Deutero-Isaiah  expresses  a  characteristic 
idea  of  Deutero-Isaiah.  If  Joel  be  late,  all  this  is  capable 
of  easy  explanation :  phrases  characteristic  of  Deutero- 
Isaiah,  Ezekiel,  and  H,  and  impressed  upon  Joel's  memory 
by  their  frequency,  have  been  combined  into  one.  But 
how  improbable  is  the  alternative  :  three  different  writers 
borrowed  from  a  single  verse  of  an  earUer  prophet  their 
characteristic  phrases  which  embodied  their  fundamental 
conceptions ! 

It  might  reasonably  be  claimed  that  any  one  of  the 
three  hnes  of  argument  which  have  been  indicated  would 
suffice  to  overthrow  the  theory  of  a  ninth-century  origin ; 
taken  together  they  rule  out  even  a  seventh-century  origin. 
Joel  cannot  have  been  written  before  the  Exile. 


3.  Amos 

The  main  subject  of  this  book  is  the  same  as  that  of  the 
book  of  Hosea — the  sins  and  approaching  downfall  of  the 
northern  kingdom  ;  but,  unlike  Hosea,  Amos  was  a  Jew, 
and  his  book  from  the  first  a  piece  of  Jewish  Uterature. 

Though  living  at  Tekoa,  some  twelve  miles  south  of 


xxm.]  THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS:  AMOS  211 

Jerusalem,  Amos  proceeded  to  Bethel,  about  the  same 
distance  north  of  Jerusalem,  to  utter  in  this  royal  town  of 
the  northern  kingdom  his  prophetic  message :  Jeroboam 
(c.  786-746  B.C.)  was  reigning  at  the  time.  So  much  is 
recorded  with  all  clearness  in  vii.  10-15.  But  we  are  left 
to  speculate  whether  Amos  himself  wrote  the  entire  book 
that  now  bears  his  name,  and  if  so  why,  or  how,  or  how  long 
after  he  had  spoken,  and  if  not,  how  it  arose.  The  period 
within  the  long  reign  of  Jeroboam  at  which  Amos  either 
spoke  or  wrote  is  not  exactly  defined.  The  title,  indeed, 
records  that  the  prophecy  was  deHvered  during  the  reign 
of  Uzziah  (Azariah)  king  of  Judah,  two  years  before  the 
earthquake  in  that  reign  (Zech.  xiv.  5).  Since,  now, 
according  to  2  Kings  xv.  1  the  first  year  of  Uzziah  was  the 
twenty-seventh  of  Jeroboam,  and  Jeroboam  reigned  in  all 
forty-one  years  (2  Kings  xiv.  23),  c.  760  seems  the  earliest 
date  at  which  the  prophetic  activity  of  Amos  should  be 
placed.  The  data  on  which  this  argument  rests  are  by  no 
means  all  secure  ;  but  the  conclusion  that  Amos  prophesied 
about  760-750  B.C.  is  probably  correct ;  the  general 
prosperity  reflected  in  the  book,  and  the  particular  reference 
in  vi.  14,  suggest  that  Jeroboam  had  been  reigning  for  some 
considerable  time,  and  had  already  won  the  successes 
recorded  in  2  Kings. 

Into  the  very  elaborate  speculations  which  have  been  put 
forward  regarding  the  origin  of  the  book  of  Amos,  it  is 
impossible  to  enter  here  :  it  must  suffice  to  draw  attention 
to  certain  general  characteristics  of  the  book  and  its 
arrangement,  and  also  to  certain  elements  in  it  that  are 
more  or  less  clearly  of,  or  may  be  later  than,  the  age  of  Amos. 

The  general  plan  is  obvious  :  the  book  opens  (chs.  i.-ii.), 
after  the  title  i.  1,  with  an  elaborate  poem  dealing,  in  a 
series  of  more  or  less  similar  strophes,  with  the  sins  com- 
mitted by,  and  the  judgment  imminent  over,  five  surround- 
ing nations  and  Judah,  and  then  at  much  greater  length 
with  the  sins  and  punishment  of  Israel  (ii.  6-16).  Chs.  iii.-vi. 
contain  a  number  of  shorter  poems,  mainly  concerned  with 
Israel,  and  arranged,  in  part  at  least,  according  to  their 


212  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

opening  worgb:  note  *  Hear  this  word '  in  iii.  1,  iv.  1,  v.  1 ; 
'  Ah  !  they  tMt '  (R.V.  '  Woe  to  them  that ')  in  v.  18,  vi.  1, 
and  originally  perhaps  in  v.  7.  Chs.  vii.-ix.  describe  four 
visions  depicting  the  approaching  end  of  Israel,  and  contain 
also  an  account  of  the  prophet's  commission  to  prophesy, 
and  of  his  fortunes  in  carrying  it  out  (vii.  10-17),  and  a  con- 
cluding section  promising  future  feUcity  under  the  Davidic 
dynasty  (vii.  11-15). 

Whether  this  arrangement  goes  back  substantially  to 
Amos  himself,  or  whether  brief  rolls  containing  one  or  more 
of  the  prophetic  poems,  or  the  story  of  his  prophetic  mission, 
were  subsequently  brought  into  the  scheme  that  now 
governs  it,  must  here  be  left  without  special  discussion,  and 
with  a  simple  reference,  for  some  of  the  general  questions 
involved,  to  ch.  xrx.  The  position  of  the  biographical  (or 
autobiographical  ?)  section  vii.  10-17  in  the  middle  of  the 
five  visions  is  curious :  the  prophet  is  hkely  to  have 
declared  the  contents  of  all  five  in  his  speech  at  Bethel ; 
or  should  we  infer  that  he  was  interrupted  before  he  could 
get  farther  than  the  third  ?  The  first  person  used  in  the 
prose  introduction  to  the  visions  may  be  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  writer  represents  thereby  the  form  in  which  he 
spoke  at  Bethel,  and  the  third  person  in  vii.  10-17  an 
objective  way  of  referring  to  himself  in  written  narrative 
(op.  Hosea  i.).  Otherwise  we  might  infer  either  differ- 
ence of  origin,  or  some  editorial  modifications  in  these 
chapters. 

In  considering  the  possibihty  of  later  elements  in  the 
book,  we  turn  first  to  the  references  to  Judah.  The  case 
is  rather  different  from  that  of  Hosea  (see  p.  206) :  for  Amos 
was  himself  a  Jew,  and  might  very  weU  have  added  subse- 
quently references  to  Judah  even  though  they  formed  no 
part  of  his  teaching  at  Bethel.  Yet  the  most  extensive  of 
the  references  to  Judah  in  the  present  text  is  a  strophe 
(ii.  4  f.)  that  differs  in  form  from  the  normal  strophe  in 
the  opening  poem ;  the  charges  against  Judah  are  vague 
and  general  as  compared  with  the  specific  charges  against 
the  other  nations  •    and  the  language  savours  somewhat 


xxm.]         THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS:  OBADIAH  213 

of  the  Deuteronomic  style.  The  other  references  to  Judah 
are  in  iii.  lb,  vi.  1  (the  words  '  are  at  ease  in  Sion  and  '). 

The  concluding  section  of  the  book  appears  to  presuppose, 
as  having  already  taken  place,  the  fall  of  the  Davidio 
dynasty  in  586,  and  predicts  its  restoration.  If  this  be  so, 
ix.  11-15  at  least  was  not  written  before  the  Exile.  Whether 
the  more  restrained  promise  of  ix.  8-10  is  from  the  same 
hand  as  ix.  11-15  is  uncertain  ;  if  it  is  not,  the  chief  reason 
for  suspecting  it  to  be  later  than  Amos  would  be  that  it 
blunts  the  edge  of  the  threats  that  characterise  the  book ; 
see  e.g.  ix.  1-4. 

It  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  believe  that  v.  8,  9  originally 
stood  between  v.  7  and  v.  10 ;  to  make  even  a  tolerable 
connection  it  is  necessary  with  B.V.  to  insert  at  the  begin- 
ning of  ver.  8  something  that  has  absolutely  no  warrant  in 
the  text.  Moreover,  iv.  13,  ix.  6,  6  are  not  closely  related  to 
their  respective  contexts.  Since  these  three  passages  are 
characterised  by  a  Deutero-Isaianic  ring  and  by  the  stress 
which  they  lay  on  the  creative  activity  of  Yahweh,  and 
since  this  curious  combination  of  Deutero-Isaianic  style, 
Deutero-Isaianic  thought,  and  looseness  of  connection,  or 
inconsistency,  with  the  context,  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in 
the  book,  it  is  probable  that  all  these  passages  are  the  work 
of  a  post-exiHc  writer. 

Finally  it  may  be  remarked  that  in  the  opening  poem 
other  strophes  besides  that  on  Judah,  for  one  reason  or 
another,  awaken  suspicion :  possibly  the  poem  as  written 
by  Amos  consisted  simply  of  three  strophes  devoted  to 
Damascus,  Ammon,  Moab,  and  three  strophes  devoted  to 
Israel. 

4.  Obadiah 

The  title  to  this  book  also  fails  to  define  its  date :  it 
merely  states  that  the  book  consists  of  the  '  vision  of,  t.e. 
the  record  of  the  prophetic  revelation  received  by,  Obadiah.' 
The  attempts  to  identify  this  prophet,  whose  name  is  one  of 
the  commonest,  with  any  of  the  other  persons  so  named  and 
mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament,  have  been  imsuccessf  ul. 


214  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

Nearly  a  third  of  this  brief  book  also  occurs  with  textual 
variations  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament,  Obad.  vv.  1-4,  5, 
6,  8=Jer.  xlix.  14-16,  9,  10a,  7.  On  the  ground  that  Jer. 
xlvi.-xlix.  formed  part  of  the  Jeremiah's  roll  prepared  in 
604  (cp.  pp.  194,  196),  and  that  the  common  matter  occurs 
in  its  more  original  form  in  Obadiah,  it  was  customary  to 
infer  that  Obadiah  was  a  pre-exilic  prophet.  But  since  it  is 
difficult  to  maintain  that  Jer.  xlvi.-xhx.  in  its  present  form 
existed  as  eariy  as  604,  this  argument  is  for  this,  even  if 
for  no  other,  reason  very  precarious. 

Whether  Obadiah  incorporates  part  of  a  pre-exilio 
prophecy  in  vv.  1-9,  as  some  have  held,  or  not,  the  book 
certainly  contains  post-exiUc  elements  :  for  the  allusion  to 
foreigners  entering  into  and  casting  lots  on  Jerusalem  (ver. 
11)  can  be  satisfactorily  explained  alone  by  the  assumption 
that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  686  was  already  past. 

It  is,  however,  probable  that  here,  as  in  Is.  xv.,  xvi.,  a 
description  of  past  calamity  has,  by  the  addition  of  pre- 
dictive elements,  been  turned  into  prophecy  ;  here,  more- 
over, the  predictive  element  includes  the  still  future 
judgment  of  Edom  as  an  incident  in  the  universal  judgment 
which  the  prophet  regards  as  imminent.  The  analysis  of 
the  prophecy  admits  of  difference  of  opinion  as  to  details  ; 
but  the  main  points  seem  to  be  these.  The  calamity  which 
has  already  befallen  the  Edomites  is  that  they  have  been 
expelled  from  their  land  by  a  number  of  nations  once  their 
friends  :  in  this  calamity  the  writer  sees  Yahweh's  retribu- 
tion on  Edom  for  its  treatment  of  the  Jews  in  their  distress 
(vv.  1-7,  10-14,  16b).  The  predictive  part  of  the  book 
foretells  the  near  approach  of  the  day  of  Yahweh  on  all 
nations,  the  annihilation  of  Esau  (i.e.  Edom)  by  the  Jews, 
and  the  reoccupation  by  the  Jews  and  Israelites,  who  will 
have  returned  from  exile,  of  the  whole  of  the  territory 
anciently  held  by  them  (Obcwi.  16a,  16-21). 

Little  can  be  said  with  any  confidence  as  to  the  more 
precise  date  of  the  several  elements  in  the  book,  or  of  their 
combination.  Perhaps,  however,  the  calamity  that  has 
actually  befallen  Edom  was  connected  with  that  north- 


xxni.]  THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS:  JONAH  216 

ward  movement  of  Arabs  which  was  aheady  threatening 
at  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century  (Ezek.  xxv.  4,  5,  10) 
and  actually  resulted  in  the  occupation  of  the  Edomite 
capital,  Petra,  by  312  B.C.  The  descriptive  element  in  the 
book  depicts  a  situation  similar  to  that  imphed  in  Mai. 
i.  2-5,  and  may  have  been  written  in  the  same  period,  i.e. 
the  fifth  century  B.C. 

6.  Jonah 

The  book  of  Jonah  existed  earlier  than  c.  200  B.C.,  for 
we  must  conclude  that  it  was  one  of  the  Twelve  Prophets 
referred  to  by  Ben  Sirach  c.  180  B.C.  (see  p.  175).  How  long 
before  200  it  was  written  is  more  difficult  to  define.  The 
references  to  Nineveh  in  iii.  3  seem  to  imply  that  the  writer 
looks  on  that  city  as  a  city  of  the  past ;  and  the  *  king  of 
Nineveh '  is  an  expression  that  would  scarcely  have  been 
used  by  a  writer  living  while  the  Assyrian  Empire  existed. 
We  might  infer  from  this  that  the  book  was  written  long 
after  606.  The  evidence  of  language  is  more  decisive : 
Aramaisms  and  later  words  or  forms  occur  with  frequency, 
particularly  in  i.  4, 5,  6,  7, 12 ;  ii.  1 ;  iii.  7  ;  iv.  6,  7,  8,  10 ;  a 
post-exihc  date  is  certainly  implied,  and  perhaps  most 
probably  some  date  between  450  and  250  B.C. 

Jonah  contains  no  prophecies  or  prophetic  poems ;  but 
it  is  a  story  about  a  prophet.  It  thus  stands  quite  apart 
in  character  from  the  remamder  of  *  the  Twelve  ' ;  and,  so 
far  as  its  Hterary  form  is  concerned,  more  nearly  resembles 
the  stories  about  Daniel,  or  the  story  about  Habakkuk  at 
the  end  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon.  Its  inclusion  and  its  par- 
ticular position  in  *  the  Twelve '  are  doubtless  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  subject  of  the  book,  a  prophet  of  the  eighth 
century  B.C.  (2  Kings  xiv.  25),  was  mistakenly  regarded  as 
its  author,  even  as  Joshua  came  to  be  regarded  as  the 
author  of  Joshua,  and  Samuel  of  Samuel. 

The  psalm  of  thanksgiving  in  ch.  ii.  was  probably  inter- 
polated into  the  narrative ;  it  has  no  real  relation  to  the 
circumstances  of  Jonah,  who  is  represented  as  uttering  it 
while  in  the  belly  of  the  fish  ;  nor  would  it  be  really  suitable 


216  CRITICAL  INTRODUOTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 

even  if  it  were  placed  after  ver.  10,  and  treated  as  a  thanks- 
giving for  delivery  from  the  fish.  The  date  of  this  psalm, 
as  of  other  individual  psalms  (pp.  134, 137),  cannot  be  closely 
determined ;  but,  consisting  as  it  does  largely  of  reminis- 
cences, it  may  safely  be  considered  relatively  late. 

With  the  exception  of  the  psalm,  the  book  is  the  work  of 
a  single  hand  :  the  attempts  to  treat  it  as  a  combination  of 
several  literary  sources  have  been  mere  freaks  of  criticism. 

It  is  certainly  unnecessary  to  suppose  that  the  story  is 
the  pure  invention  of  the  writer.  Whether  it  has  any 
historical  basis  in  anything  that  really  happened  to  Jonah, 
the  son  of  Amittai,  may  be  doubted.  The  suggestions 
which  the  writer  received  may  rather  have  been  derived 
from  floating  stories,  or  even  perhaps  from  certain  mytho- 
logical motives.  In  this  connection  attention  has  been 
drawn  to  the  fact  that  the  neighbourhood  of  Joppa,  which 
is  the  scene  of  Jonah's  deUvery  from  the  fish,  was  also  the 
scene  of  Andromeda's  dehvery  from  the  sea-monster  by 
Perseus ;  and  also  to  Egyptian  and  Indian  stories,  in  one  of 
which  a  son  takes  passage  in  disobedience  to  his  mother, 
the  ship  is  stayed  by  some  unknown  power,  lots  are  cast, 
the  disobedient  son  is  discovered  to  be  the  culprit,  and  is 
sent  afloat  on  a  raft,  and  thereafter  the  ship  pursues  its 
course.  These  and  similar  parallels  open  up  a  study  in 
the  migration  of  stories  which  cannot  be  pursued  further 
here. 

But  whatever  suggestions  the  author  may  have  received, 
and  whencesoever  he  may  have  derived  them,  he  uses  the 
story  as  the  vehicle  for  what  is  pecuharly  his  own  ;  and  this 
is  some  of  the  noblest  thought  in  the  Old  Testament :  the 
largeness  of  God's  mercy  passes  far  beyond  the  current 
conceptions  of  his  own  peculiar  people ;  it  is  over  all 
mankind,  who  are  without  exception  the  works  of  his 
labour  and  the  objects  of  his  care  :  if  men  anywhere  repent, 
and  turn  from  their  evil  ways,  God,  too,  turns  away  the 
pimishment  due  to  those  who  do  evil.  In  the  person  of 
Jonah,  the  author  rebukes  the  narrow  interests  of  his 
people ;   the  messenger  of  Yahweh  should  enter  into  the 


xxm.]  THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS:  MICAH  21? 

largeness  of  God's  thoughts,  and  not  desire  the  destruction 
of  the  nations,  but  rather  that  they  should  turn  from  their 
"Nakedness  and  live. 

If,  so  far  as  its  Uterary  form  goes,  which  is  that  of  a 
story  gathering  round  the  person  of  an  ancient  Hebrew 
prophet,  the  book  of  Jonah  may  be  compared  to  the  rather 
trivial  story  of  Habakkuk  who  performs  a  miraculous 
journey  and  brings  a  dinner  to  Daniel  in  the  hons'  den, 
in  virtue  of  the  nobility  of  its  thought  it  takes  its  place 
with  the  greatest  literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  with  those 
poems  in  which  the  Deutero-Isaiah  depicts  the  prophetic 
mission  of  Israel  to  the  nations. 


6.   MiOAH 

The  book  of  Micah  consists  of  three  well-defined  parts, 
different  in  character  and  probably  different  also  in  origin, 
though  the  substantial  unity  of  Micah  is  still  frequently 
and  vigorously  defended.  The  first  part  consists  of 
chs.  i.-iii. ;  this,  whether  judged  by  internal  evidence  or 
the  direct  testimony  of  Jer.  xxvi.  18,  is  the  work  of  a  prophet 
hving  towards  the  end  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.  The 
subject  of  chs.  i.-iii.  is  the  sins  of  Judah,  with  which  in  one 
passage  (i.  5)  Samaria  is  associated,  and  the  judgment  for 
these  sins  which  is  imminent.  The  second  part  of  the  book 
(chs.  iv.,  V.)  consists  in  the  main,  if  not  entirely,  of  promises 
and  predictions  of  delivery  and  restoration  and  future 
glory.  The  third  part  of  the  book  (chs.  vi.,  vii.)  is  more 
miscellaneous  in  character. 

The  work  of  Micah,  who,  unlike  his  contemporary  Isaiah, 
belonged  not  to  Jerusalem,  but  was  a  native  of  Moresheth- 
gath,  which  lay  a  good  day's  journey  from  the  capital,  is 
probably  confined  to  the  Bist  part  of  the  book  ;  one  or  two 
fragments  in  ch.  v.  may  also  possibly  belong  to  the  eighth 
century,  but  even  so  are  not  necessarily  the  work  of  Micah  j 
in  standpoint  they  differ  from  chs.  i.-iii. 

According  to  Jer.  xxvi.  18  it  was  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah 
that  Micah  made  the  announcement  that  Jerusalem  was  to 


218  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [cjh. 

be  razed  to  the  ground  (iii.  12) ;  unfortunately  the  chron- 
ology of  Hezekiah's  reign  is  uncertain ;  he  may  have  ac- 
ceded as  early  as  727,  or  not  until  715.  According  to  the 
title  (i.  1)  Micah  prophesied  also  in  the  preceding  reigns  of 
Jotham  and  Ahaz.  It  would  be  unwise  to  lay  much  weight 
on  the  testimony  of  the  title ;  but  obviously  we  are  not 
bound  to  conclude  from  Jer.  xxvi.  18  that  Micah's  activity 
was  confined  to  Hezekiah's  reign ;  even  though  Micah  iii.  12 
was  spoken  after  715,  some  of  the  prophecies  in  chs.  i.-iii. 
may  have  been  spoken  earlier.  And  the  view  commonly 
taken  that  the  reference  to  Samaria  in  i.  5  imphes  a  date 
prior  to  the  capture  of  that  city  by  Sargon  in  722  still 
perhaps  remains  the  most  probable.  An  alternative  theory, 
starting  from  the  consideration  that  Samaria  though 
captured  was  not  destroyed  in  722,  finds  the  occasion  of  the 
prophecies  of  Micah  in  the  advance  of  Sennacherib  in  701. 
when  there  was  more  reason  to  expect  an  attack  on  Jerusa- 
lem than  shortly  before  722.  Yet  as  against  this  con- 
sideration, it  may  be  asked  whether  in  701  Samaria  remained 
sufficiently  important  for  a  Jewish  prophet  to  couple  it 
with  Jerusalem,  and  indeed  to  mention  it  first.  The 
alternative  theories,  then,  place  Micah's  activity  about 
724,  or  about  701. 

Within  chs.  i.-iii.  the  promise  in  ii.  12  f.,  which  appears 
to  presuppose  the  scattering  of  Israel,  may  be  a  post- 
exilic  addition.  Other  additions  have  been  suspected  in 
i.  7,  which  stands  awkwardly  before  1.  8,  and  interrupts  a 
possible  connection  between  i.  6  and  i.  8,  and  with  less 
reason  in  i.  l-5a,  10-16,  ii.  6. 

The  citation  of  iii.  12  in  Jer.  xxvi.  18  does  not  of  course 
prove  that  even  the  first  part  of  Micah  already  existed 
in  its  present  extent  before  the  end  of  the  seventh  century 
B.C. ;  still  less  that  the  book  of  Micah  then  included  chs. 
iv.-vii.  We  may  rather  infer  that  these  chapters  did  not 
then  follow  chs.  i.-iii. ;  if  the  book  of  Micah  consisted  then, 
as  it  does  now,  even  more  of  promise  than  of  condemna- 
tion and  threatenings,  and  if,  in  particular,  the  threat  of 
the  destruction  of  Sion  was  then,  as  now,  immediately 


xxm.]  THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS:  MICAH  219 

followed  by  a  glowing  description  of  its  future  glory,  could 
the  elders  have  risked  the  retort  that,  if  Jeremiah,  like 
Micah,  would  wipe  out  the  effect  of  his  threats  by  promises, 
all  would  be  different,  and  Jeremiah  might  safely  be 
forgiven  ? 

Chs.  iv.  and  v.  consist  of  a  number  of  brief  poems  or  frag- 
ments, viz.  iv.  1-4,  5,  6-8,  9  f.,  11-14,  v.  1,  2-6,  7-9,  10-15. 
The  first  of  these  stands  also  in  Is.  ii.  2-4  ;  just  as  psalms, 
like  xiv.=hii.,  were  included  in  two  collections,  so  this 
prophetic  poem,  probably  of  the  exiUc  or  post-exilic  period, 
has  been  included  in  two  prophetic  collections.  The 
references  to  Babylon  in  iv.  10,  to  the  'former  dominion'  in 
iv.  6-8,  and  the  representation  of  Jacob  as  reduced  to 
a  remnant  in  v.  7,  suggest  a  date  no  earlier  than  the  Exile  : 
in  dweUing  on  the  inviolabihty  of  Sion,  iv.  11-13  represents 
a  standpoint  strikingly  unUke  Micah's  (iii.  12,  Jer.  xxvi  18) ; 
and  the  expectation  of  a  judgment  on  the  nations  in 
general  (iv.  13,  v.  15)  is  at  least  much  more  conspicuous  in 
late  than  in  early  prophecy.  If  chs.  iv.  and  v.  contain  any 
fragments  of  pre-exiUc  prophecy,  these  are  to  be  sought 
in  V.  10-14  and  v.  1 ;  but  some  have  suspected  that  v.  13- 
14  is  post-Deuteronomic  on  account  of  the  opposition  to 
Asherim,  obeUsks  and  graven  images,  which  are  all 
mentioned  together,  as  in  Deut.  vii.  5,  xii.  3. 

The  third  part  of  the  book  opens  (vi.  1-8)  with  a  passage 
that  has  very  generally,  since  Ewald,  been  assigned  to  the 
reign  of  Manasseh.  Even  if  this  date  be  correct  it  is  not 
very  probable  that  vi.  1-8  and  chs.  i.-iii.,  which  breathe 
such  a  different  spirit,  are  from  one  and  the  same  writer. 
The  use  of  the  term  *  burnt-offering  *  and  not  the  more 
specific  *  sin-offering '  of  later  writers,  the  nature  of  the 
allusion  to  Balaam,  and  the  reference  to  the  sacrifice  of 
the  firstborn,  perhaps,  point  to  a  date  not  lat-er  than  the 
seventh  century ;  it  is  at  least  questionable  whether  we 
could  safely  refer  this  prophecy  to  the  fifth  century,  on  the 
ground  that  these  considerations  are  outweighed  by  the 
use  of  the  term  '  God  of  the  height,*  impljdng,  it  is  urged, 
an  emphasis  on  the  transcendence  of  God,  and  the  appeal 


220  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT'  [ch. 

to  *man'  in  ver.  8  implying,  again,  it  is  urged,  an 
emphasis  on  the  individual  that  points  to  an  age  after 
Jeremiah. 

It  is  possible  that  vi.  9-16  and  vii.  1-6,  even  if  not  from 
the  same  hand,  may  belong  to  much  the  same  period  as 
vi.  1-8.  On  the  other  hand,  vii.  7-20  seems  widely  separated 
from  those  sections.  '  What  was  present  in  vii.  1-6,  viz. 
moral  disorder  and  confusion  in  the  existing  Jewish  state, 
is  in  vii.  7-20  pxst ;  what  is  thQiQ  future,  viz.,  the  retribution 
of  vii.  4b  has  here  come  to  pass,  and  has  been  continuing 
for  some  time.  Between  vii.  6  and  vii.  7  yawns  a  century  ' 
(Wellhausen).  This  last  section  of  the  book,  vii.  7-20, 
seems  to  have  been  written  at  least  as  late  as  the  Exile. 

7.  Nahxtm 

The  prophecy  of  Nahum  was  written  between  663,  the 
date  of  the  sack  of  Thebes  (No-Ammon)  by  the  Assyrians, 
to  which  the  prophet  alludes  (iii.  8),  and  the  fall  of  Nineveh 
in  607,  which  the  prophet  predicts.  The  occasion  of  it 
is  most  likely  to  have  been  either  the  attack  made  on 
Nineveh  by  Cyaxares  the  Mede  about  623,  or,  more  pro- 
bably, the  circumstances  immediately  leading  up  to  the 
destruction  of  the  city  in  607.  In  either  case  Nahum 
would  have  been  a  contemporary  of  Jeremiah,  but  a 
prophet  occupying,  as  we  know  from  Jeremiah  himself 
that  many  prophets  of  the  time  did,  a  very  different 
position  from  his.  Nahum  is  convinced  that  Nineveh  must 
fall,  because  the  Assyrians  had  attacked  the  Jews  and 
(under  Sennacherib)  Jerusalem  ;  Jeremiah  was  convinced 
that  Jerusalem  must  fall  because  the  Jews  had  sinned,  of 
which  fact  Nahum  has  not  a  word  to  say. 

*  The  oraole  of  Nineveh  *  is  strictly  speaking  confined 
to  chs.  ii.  (except  ver.  2)  and  iii.  and  a  verse  or  two  in  ch.  i. 
The  prophecy  probably  opened  with  the  address  to  Nineveh 
in  ver.  11,  which,  adopting  a  sUght  emendation,  may  be 
rendered,  *Did  not  one  come  forth  out  of  thee,  who 
imagined  evil  against  Yahweh,  who  counselled  villainy  ?  * 


xxm.]  THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS:  NAHUM  221 

Then  follows  Yahweh's  decree  that  Nineveh  shall  bo 
destroyed  (i.  14,  also  ?  ver.  12),  and  then  in  chs.  ii.  and  iii. 
an  imaginative  description  of  its  fulfilment  and  reflections 
upon  it.  The  verses  addressed  to  Judah  i.  13-15,  as  also 
ii.  2,  which  interrupt  the  main  theme  are  probably  later 
additions. 

Prefixed  to  the  oracle  is  the  first  half  of  an  alphabetic 
poem  the  structure  of  which  has  been  slightly  obscured, 
but  is  clear  enough  down  to  ver.  9.  Ver.  10  may  also  have 
belonged  to  this  poem.  There  are  several  objections  to 
an  alternative  theory  that  the  oracle  begins  at  i.  9  :  (1) 
i.  9  seems  to  be  still  part  of  the  alphabetic  poem  ;  (2)  i.  11 
is  a  much  more  effective  opening ;  (3)  i.  9  has  the  second 
person  plural,  and  so  is  unlike  i.  11,  14. 

The  presence  of  this  mutilated  alphabetic  poem  at  the 
beginning  of  the  book  is  to  be  attributed  to  an  editor 
rather  than  to  Nahum ;  the  effect  of  the  addition  is  to 
make  the  destruction  of  Nineveh,  the  opponent  of  the 
Jews,  an  illustration  of  the  general  truth  that  Yahweh 
takes  vengeance  on  the  guilty,  but  deUvers  those  that 
trust  in  him. 

The  determination  of  the  date  of  the  alphabetic  poem 
is  not  easy  :  no  other  such  poem  that  can  be  at  aU  securely 
dated  is  earlier  than  the  earliest  dirges  in  Lamentations, 
t.e.  than  the  Exile.  Most  probably  the  poem  is  of  post- 
exilic  origin,  and  the  present  form  of  Nahum  due  to  a 
post-exilio  editor. 

8.  Habakkuk 

The  book  of  Habakkuk  consists  of  (1)  prophecies,  or 
prophetic  fragments  :  chs.  i.,  ii. ;   (2)  a  psalm  :  ch.  iii. 

Ch.  iii.  appears  to  be  derived  from  some  collection  of 
Psalms  ;  like  fifty-four  psalms  in  the  Psalter  it  is  described 
as  'of  the  chief  musician.'  The  title  in  iii.  1,  which  does 
not  necessarily  possess  any  more  credibility  than  other 
titles  to  Psalms,  ascribes  this  psalm  to  the  prophet 
Habakkuk,  even  as  the  LXX.  ascribes  Psalms  cxlvi.-cxlviii. 
to    the    prophets    Haggai    and    Zechariah.    For  reasons 


222  CRmCAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

indicated  in  ch.  xiv.  it  is  difficult  to  determine  the  date  at 
all  precisely,  but  it  is  probably  post-exib'c ;  in  iii.  13b 
Yahweh's  '  anointed  *  is  the  theocratic  people  (iii.  13a) 
at  a  time  when  no  human  Je^vish  monarchy  existed.  At 
what  period  the  psalm  was  attached  to  the  prophecies, 
whether  before,  or  at  the  time  of,  or  even  after,  the  com- 
pilation of  '  The  Twelve  '  cannot  be  determined. 

The  remainder  of  the  book  is  very  Ukely  not  all  the 
work  of  a  single  author,  or  even  of  a  single  generation. 
The  questions  of  origin  and  purpose,  which  are  intimately 
bound  up  with  the  detailed  exegesis  of  the  book,  are 
peculiarly  difficult ;  and  the  lack  of  unambiguous  data 
allows  only  of  very  partial  and  uncertain  answers. 

The  two  points  that  seem  clearest  are  these  :  (1)  i.  6-10 
and  whatever  else  exegesis  may  show  to  be  of  one  piece 
with  this  passage,  and  consequently  to  have  been  written 
at  the  same  time  with  it,  belong  to  a  prophecy  written  at 
the  time  when  the  Chaldeans  (i.  6)  were  emerging  into 
prominence  as  an  active  and  irresistible  world-power. 
The  attitude  of  the  writer  to  the  Chaldeans  is  similar  to 
that  of  Isaiah  towards  the  (unnamed)  Assyrians  in  an  early 
poem  (v.  26-29)  written  within  a  few  years  of  the  beginning 
of  the  western  advance  of  Assyria.  (2)  Ch.  ii.  5-19  (in  the 
main  at  least)  is  a  prophetic  denunciation  of  a  world-power 
with  a  long  career  of  conquest  and  brutahty  already  behind 
it  from  which  the  prophet  and  his  people  have  themselves 
Buffered. 

From  this  it  follows  that  i.  5-10,  and  whatever  else  goes 
with  it,  was  written  towards  the  end  of  the  seventh  century — 
certainly  after  the  founding  of  the  Neo-Babylonian  (Chal- 
dean) Empire  by  Nabopolassar  in  625,  and  probably  after 
the  fall  of  Nineveh  in  607,  and  also  after,  and  indeed  im- 
mediately after,  the  battle  of  Carchemish  in  605,  in  which, 
by  defeating  the  Egyptians,  the  Babylonians  estabUshed 
their  supremacy.  An  attempt  to  avoid  this  conclusion  and 
to  find  in  the  prophecy  a  reference  to  the  revolts  of  Chal- 
deans in  the  eighth  century  within  the  Assyrian  Empire 
(which  remained  unshaken)  has  proved  unsuccessful ;   and 


xxui.]       THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS:  HABAKKUK  223 

the  substitution  of  another  term  such  as  Chittim  (t.e. 
Greeks)  for  Chaldeans  in  i.  6  is  unjustified. 

But,  further,  ii.  5-19,  either,  if  it  also  refers  to  the  Chal- 
deans, must  have  been  written  long  after  i.  5-10,  or,  if  it 
was  written  even  approximately  at  the  same  time,  it  must 
refer  to  another  power,  and,  since  the  dominance  of  Egypt 
over  Judah  (609-605)  and  its  career  of  conquest  was  so  short, 
this  power  must  have  been  Assyria.  Between  these  two 
alternatives,  that  ii.  5-19  was  written,  say,  about  615  B.C., 
and  is  a  denunciation  of  Assyria,  the  oppressor  of  Judah  for 
more  than  a  century,  but  now  tottering  to  its  fall  before 
the  rising  power  of  the  Chaldeans,  and  that  it  is  a  denun- 
ciation of  the  Chaldeans  written  long  after  i.  5-10,  and 
scarcely  much  if  at  all  before  550,  it  is  difficult  to  decide  ; 
the  first  would  be  compatible  with  the  common  author- 
ship of  i.  5-10  and  ii.  5-19,  the  second  scarcely ;  the  first 
would  imply  an  attitude  to  Assyria  similar  to  Nahum's, 
the  second  an  attitude  to  Babylon  similar  to  that  which 
is  displayed,  on  the  common  interpretation  of  that  poem, 
in  Is.  xiv.  4-21.  Since  the  name  of  the  oppressor  in  ii.  5-19 
is  never  mentioned,  the  passage  might  even  refer  to 
Persians  or  Greeks,  but  the  absence  of  marks  of  lateness 
in  the  language  would  be  quite  unfavourable  to  such 
a  theory. 

It  should  be  added  with  regard  to  ii.  6-19  that  the 
apparently  intimate  connection  with  what  precedes,  im- 
pHed  by  the  opening  words,  is  probably  due  to  textual 
corruption.  In  ii.  5,  it  is  probable  that  a  new  and  inde- 
pendent section  began  with  the  line  :  '  Ah  !  the  treacherous 
dealer,  the  haughty  man,  that  resteth  not.' 

The  general  character  and  purpose  of  ii.  6-19  is  clear, 
whatever  its  age,  and  whichever  the  power  denounced  may 
have  been.  Not  so  i.  1-ii.  4 ;  the  main  question  here  is 
this  :  is  the  prophet's  perplexity  (i.  2-4)  caused  (1)  by  the 
prevalence  of  wickedness  unrebuked  and  unpunished  in 
Judah  generally  ;  or  (2)  by  the  oppression  imder  which  the 
righteous,  viz.  the  Jews,  suffer  at  the  hands  of  the  wicked, 
oppressing   world-power;    or  (3)  by  the  oppression  and 


224  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ca 

ill-treatment  of  a  class  of  righteous  individual  Jews  or 
unrighteous  Jews. 

If  the  first  view  be  correct,  then  to  the  prophet's  com- 
plaint (i.  2-4)  i.  6  fF.  may  contain  Yahweh's  reply,  '  Behold 
ye  faithless  (Jews),'  as,  following  the  LXX.,  we  may  render 
i.  5, ' ,  .  .  I  raise  up  the  Chaldeans  as  a  judgment  upon  you.' 
But  then  i.  11,  12  ff.,  at  least  in  its  present  form,  can 
scarcely  be  the  immediate  sequence  of  i.  2-10 ;  for  the 
*  wicked '  in  ver.  13  would  mean  the  Chaldeans,  and  thus 
have  a  different  meaning  from  the  same  term  in  vers.  2-4, 
and,  moreover,  would  imply,  Uke  ii.  5-19,  that  the  Chaldeans 
already  had  had  a  long  career  of  brutal  conquest  behind 
them,  and  thus  be  incompatible  with  i.  5-10.  If  the  second 
of  the  above  views  be  adopted,  i.  5-11  must  be  out  of  place ; 
but  throughout  i.  2-4,  12-17,  ii.  1-4  the  '  righteous '  will 
mean  the  Jews,  and  the  *  wicked '  the  nation  oppressing 
them  ;  and  the  prophecy  wiU  close  with  the  revelation  that 
the  arrogant  empire  will  come  to  ruin,  but  the  Jews  will 
endure.  The  third  of  the  above  views  is  only  possible  if 
we  Umit  the  discussion  of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  to 
these  verses  :  i.  2-4,  12a,  13,  ii.  1-4  ;  and  even  then  whether 
ii.  1  is  as  suitable  on  this  view  as  on  a  view  that  allows 
the  prophet  to  mount  his  watch-tower  in  order  to  look  far 
out  into  the  world  (cp.  Is.  xxi.  1)  may  be  doubted. 

On  the  first  of  the  views  just  discussed,  i.  2-10  will  have 
been  written,  in  reference  to  the  wickedness  prevalent  in 
Judah  in  Jehoiakim's  reign  ;  and  the  date  of  the  remainder 
will  remain  uncertain.  On  the  second  view,  i.  5-10  wiU  have 
been  written  about  605  ;  but  i.  2-4,  12-17,  ii.  1-4  presents  a 
difi&culty.  The  postulate  that  Judah  is  righteous  is  un- 
likely to  have  been  made  before  Josiah's  reformation  in 
621  ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  oppression  of  the  wicked 
seems  to  have  lasted  long  (i.  2-4, 17) — longer,  perhaps,  than 
the  time  between  the  establishment  of  Babylonian  supre- 
macy (606)  and  the  fall  of  the  Jewish  state  (586).  Yet 
the  alternatives  are  difficult:  Assyria,  whose  grip  was 
rapidly  loosening  even  before  621,  can  scarcely  be  the 
oppressor ;  and,  if  we  are  inclined  to  treat  the  prophecy 


xxm.]       THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS:  ZEPHANIAH  226 

as  from  the  same  hand  as  ii.  5-19,  and  to  bring  it  down  to 
about  550,  the  question  arises  whether  i.  2-4  is  likely  to 
have  been  written  out  of  Judah  and  in  exile. 

A  bare  reference  to  another  solution  that  has  been  offered 
must  suffice  :  Budde,  in  the  Encycl.  Bibl.y  has  proposed 
that  the  original  order  of  i.  1-ii.  4  was  i.  2-4,  12-17,  ii.  1-4, 
i.  6-11,  and  that  the  prophet  depicted  the  oppression  of 
Judah  by  Assyria  and  received  the  divine  revelation  that 
the  Chaldeans  would  overthrow  Assyria.  One  reason  for 
not  accepting  this  solution  has  been  hinted  at  in  the  last 
paragraph. 

9.  Zephaniah 

The  title  to  this  book  asserts  that  Zephaniah  was  the 
great-great-grandson  of  Hezekiah  (by  whom  in  all  proba- 
bility is  intended  the  king  of  Judah  contemporary  with 
Isaiah),  and  that  he  prophesied  in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  The 
two  assertions  are  compatible  with  one  another  and  pro- 
bably correct,  though  if,  as  is  then  most  Ukely,  Zephaniah 
prophesied  c.  627,  and  certainly  before  621,  when  Josiah 
abolished  the  idolatrous  practices  described  in  i.  4,  5,  he 
must  have  been,  Uke  Jeremiah,  a  young  man  when  he  began 
to  prophesy.  The  occasion  of  the  prophecy  in  this  case 
was  doubtless  the  same  as  that  of  Jeremiah's  earUest 
prophecy — a  danger  threatening  from  the  north  (Jer.  i.). 
This  is  commonly  understood  to  have  been  the  descent  of 
the  Scythians,  which  actually  took  place  about  this  time  : 
according  to  Herod,  i.  104  f.  the  Scythians  swarmed 
through  Palestine  further  south  than  Ashkelon.  Abandon- 
ing the  evidence  of  the  title,  Konig  prefers  to  place  the 
prophecy  in  Jehoiakim's  reign,  though  in  part  necessarily 
(cp.  ii.  13)  before  the  fall  of  Nineveh ;  seeing  in  i.  4,  5  a 
description  of  the  survival  of  idolatry  under  Jehoiakim  and 
in  the  instrument  of  judgment  the  Chaldeans  (cp.  Hab. 
i.  5-10,  p.  222),  he  lays  stress  on  the  phrase  *  the  remnant 
(but  LXX.  "  the  names  ")  of  Baal  *  in  i.  4  as  incompatible 
with  a  date  before  Josiah's  reformation. 


226  CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [CH. 

Chs.  i.  and  ii.  predict  a  universal  judgment  that  will 
affect  in  particular  Judah,  Philistia,  Moab,  Ammon, 
Ethiopia  and  Assyria.  It  has  been  suggested  that 
Zephaniah's  original  prophecy  addressed  itself  particulariy 
to  Judah,  Phihstia,  Ethiopia  and  Assyria,  and  that  it 
subsequently  received  universahsing  touches  (especially 
ii.  11),  and  the  addition  after  586  B.C.  of  the  denunciation 
of  Moab  and  Ammon  (ii.  8-10),  which  betrays  the  same 
attitude  as  that  of  Ezekiel  (xxv.  1-11)  towards  Edom. 
Possibly  also  the  promises  in  ii.  3,  7  are  additions. 

With  ch.  iii.  a  new  section  begins :  iii.  1-7  may  be 
another  denunciation  of  Jerusalem  by  Zephaniah,  or  is 
perhaps  of  later  origin.  The  prediction  of  a  universal 
judgment  which  only  the  godly  remnant  of  Judah  will 
escape  (iii.  8,  11-13),  the  verses  interpolated  (iii.  9,  10) 
in  this  prediction  and  foreteUing  that  Yahweh  will  be 
universally  worshipped  (cp.  ii.  11),  and  the  description  of 
the  glory  of  the  Jews  after  Yahweh  has  delivered  them 
from  their  present  captivity  (iii.  14-20)  are  all  probably, 
and  especially  iii.  9-10,  14-20,  post-exiUc  prophecies  added 
to  the  pre-exilic  book  of  Zephaniah,  perhaps  by  the  same 
editor  who  interpolated,  if  they  be  interpolations,  ii.  3,  7. 

10.  Haooai 

The  book  of  Haggai  contains  an  account  of  the  argu- 
ments and  promises  with  which  Haggai  (Ezra  v.  1,  vi.  14) 
urged  the  Jewish  community  to  undertake  the  rebuilding 
of  the  Temple,  and  designated  Zerubbabel  as  the  chosen  of 
Yahweh  to  establish  the  Messianic  kingdom. 

Whether  this  record  of  Haggai's  activity  and  teaching 
was  prepared  by  the  prophet  himself  or  one  of  his  hearers 
is  uncertain :  the  reference  to  Haggai  throughout  in  the 
third  person,  and  the  frequent  addition  to  his  name  of  the 
title  *  prophet,*  rather  favour  the  second  alternative. 
In  any  case,  the  book  was  probably  written  within  a  year 
or  two  at  most  of  520  B.C.,  and  has  reached  us,  apart  from 
a  little  textual  corruption  and  glossing,  as  it  left  the  hands 


xxm.]  THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS:  HAGGAI  227 

of  its  author ;  for  occasional  attempts  to  detect  secondary 
elements  in  ii.  10-19,  20-23  have  proved  quite  unsuccessful 
and  foimd  no  acceptance. 

Haggai's  prophecies,  like  EzekiePs  and  Zechariah's, 
are  accurately  dated.  The  dates  of  the  prophecies  of 
the  two  contemporaries,  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  may  be 
shown  in  a  single  table  : — 

Reference.  Day  and  month  and  B.C. 


year  of  Darius. 

Hag.  i. 

1.  vi.  2 

620. 

September. 

Hag.  ii.  1-9 

21.  vii.  2 

620. 

October. 

Zech.  i.  1-6 

viii.  2 

620. 

November. 

Hag.  ii.  10-13 

24.  ix.  2 

620. 

December. 

Zech.  i.  7-vi.  16 

24.  xi.  2 

619. 

February. 

Zech.  vii.,  viii. 

4.ix,4 
11.  Zbohaiiiah 

618. 

December. 

The  book  of  Zechariah  consists  of  (1)  chs.  i.-viii.,  the 
teaching  of  Zechariah  in  the  years  520-518  ;  (2)  chs.  ix.-xiv., 
anonymous  prophecies  of  a  later  date. 

The  prophecies  of  Zechariah  are  accurately  dated 
(see  above) ;  in  the  formal  dating,  the  prophet  speaks  of 
himself  in  the  third  person,  elsewhere  in  the  first  person — 
an  intelligible  distinction.  We  may  assume,  then,  that 
Zechariah  prepared  his  own  resume  of  his  public  teaching 
(i.  2-6,  14-17,  ii.  10-17,  iv.  6-lOa,  vii.  3-viii.  23),  and  him- 
self wrote  the  account  of  his  visions  which  constitute  the 
remaining  and  chief  part  of  his  book.  Possibly  Zechariah 
wrote  chs.  i.-vi.  in  519  B.C.,  and  added  chs.  vii.  f.  in  517 ; 
there  is  no  clear  hint  at  all  events  that  the  book  was  written 
after  Zerubbabel  had  failed  to  maintain  his  position,  and 
still  more  to  fulfil  the  Messianic  expectations  of  Haggai  and 
Zechariah. 

There  is  no  reason  to  suspect  any  serious  later  additions 
to  Zechariah's  book ;  but  a  misplacement  in  iv.,  which 
appears    to    be   merely   accidental,    and    an   intentional 


228   CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oa 

modification  in  vi.,  have  greatly  obscured  Zechariah's 
meaning  in  these  passages.  In  ch.  iv.,  the  prophetic 
saying,  extending  from  ver.  6b  ('  this  is  the  word  of  the 
Yahweh,'  etc.)  to  ver.  10a  ('  in  the  hand  of  Zerubbabel '), 
has  accidentally  intruded  into  the  middle  of  one  of  the 
visions ;  the  vision  originally  ran  straight  on  from  ver. 
6a  to  10b  :  *  then  he  answered  and  spake  unto  me,  saying, 
these  seven  are  the  eyes  of  Yahweh  which  run  to  and  fro, 
etc.' 

In  Zech.  vi.  11-13  it  is  almost  certain  that  the  original 
text  spoke  of  one  crown  only,  and  that  for  Zerubbabel ; 
and  predicted  that  Zerubbabel  should  sit  on  the  throne  and 
Joshua  '  on  his  right  hand '  (so  the  LXX.  still),  and  that 
*  the  counsel  of  peace '  should  be  *  between  them  both.' 
At  some  time  after  the  line  of  David  had  failed  to  maintain 
even  the  position  which  Zerubbabel  had  actually  occupied, 
and  the  high  priest  had  become  supreme  in  Jadah,  an 
editor  by  a  slight  alteration  entirely  transformed  the 
purport  of  the  promise  by  making  it  a  prediction  of  the 
rule  of  the  high  priest. 


Zechariah  ix.-xiv. 

The  first  impulse  to  realise  that  these  chapters  are  of 
entirely  distinct  and  independent  origin,  and  are  not  the 
work  of  Zechariah,  or  even  of  his  age,  came  from  the  con- 
sideration that  Zech.  xi.  12  f.  is  cited  in  Matt,  xxvii.  9  f. 
as  the  words  not  of  Zechariah,  but  of  Jeremiah.  This  at 
first  led  most  to  postulate  for  the  chapters  a  pre-exilic 
origin,  a  view  which,  more  or  less  modified,  is  still  some- 
times maintained ;  but  it  is  now  more  commonly  held 
that  these  chapters  are  entirely  of  post-exilic  origin. 

Where  the  work  of  Zechariah  ends,  and  that  of  the 
anonymous  writer(8)  begins,  is  clear  beyond  mistake : 
it  would  be  diflficult  to  conceive  a  greater  difference  than 
that  between  the  precisely  dated  sections  of  Zechariah, 
with  their  clear  reflection  of  the  times  and  conditions  of 
the  prophet's  activity,  and  the  difficult,  vague,  and  obscure 


xxm.]       THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS:  ZECHARIAH  229 

chapters  that  begin  with  ch.  ix.  Textual  comiption  and 
the  constant  difficulty  of  interpretation  render  many  ques- 
tions that  arise  difficult  to  answer,  and  in  particular  that 
as  to  the  unity  of  ix.-xiv.  Are  these  chapters  a  single 
prophecy,  or  the  work  of  more  than  one  writer,  and  mainly 
of  two  ix.-xi.  (-fxiii.  7-9),  xii.-xiv.  ?  Both  views  have  been 
taken.  At  first  sight  an  outward  indication  of  diversity 
seems  present  in  the  curious  title  *  the  oracle  of  the  word 
of  Yahweh,'  which  appears  in  ix.  1,  xi.  1,  Mai.  i.  1,  and 
nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament ;  yet  these  titles  may 
proceed  not  from  the  compiler  of  *  the  Twelve,'  who  thus 
distinguished  prophecies  he  knew  to  be  anonymous,  but 
from  a  later  scribe.  In  favour  of  unity  is  the  vague, 
enigmatic  style  that  is  common  to  all  parts  of  ix.-xiv., 
and  much  similarity  in  sentiment  and  outlook. 

The  date  of  the  prophecy,  or  of  ix.-xi.  at  least,  seems 
clearly  defined  by  the  reference  in  ix.  13  to  Greece 
(Javan)  as  the  great  power  opposed  to  the  Jews :  this 
would  indicate  Alexander's  conquests  as  the  terminus  a  quo. 
The  differentiation  of  Assyria  and  Egypt  (x.  11)  may  then 
imply  that  Alexander's  Empire  had  already  been  divided, 
and  that  the  Seleucids  of  *  Assyria '  and  the  Ptolemies  of 
Egypt  were  to  the  writer  hving,  say,  about  280  B.C.,  the 
prominent  Greek  dynasties.  Others,  taking  *the  Greeks'  of 
ix.  13  to  be  defined  by  ix.  1  f.,  think  the  Seleucid  Empire 
in  particular  is  intended,  and,  finding  identifications  of  the 
*  three  shepherds  '  (xi.  8),  at  least  as  probable  as  others 
that  have  been  offered,  in  the  three  successive  high  priests 
Lysimachus,  Jason,  and  Menelaus,  and  in  xii.  10  an  allusion 
to  the  death  of  Onias  ni.  in  170,  regard  the  book  as  having 
been  written  about  160  B.C. 

But  all  this  rests  on  the  security  of  the  word  *  Greece  '  in 
ix.  13.  The  doubt  cast  on  this  word,  and  the  proposal, 
for  example,  of  Konig  to  substitute  Nineveh,  seem,  indeed, 
to  lack  justification.  Yet  it  is  worth  while  considering  the 
evidence  for  date,  eis  it  would  stand  if  '  Greece '  in  ix.  13 
were  eUminated.  Even  so  the  cumulative  evidence,  as  in 
Is.  xxiv.-xxvii.,  which  this  prophecy  resembles  in  its  enig- 


230   CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 

matio,  apocalyptic  character,  would  point  to  the  post-exilic 
period.  But  this  evidence  would  turn  to  a  great  extent 
on  questions  of  literary  dependence,  and  the  history  of 
ideas,  which  are  themselves  subjects  of  discussion. 
Certainly  the  language  does  not  point  to  so  late  a  date  as 
the  second  century,  and  one  usage,  viz.  the  great  pre- 
ponderance of  anoki  over  am  (p.  23),  would  even  suggest, 
taken  by  itself,  the  pre-exilic  period.  If  late,  the  relative 
purity  of  the  style  will  be  due,  as  in  Joel  and  Is.  xxiv.- 
xxvii.,  to  close  study  of  the  earlier  Uterature  of  which 
Zech.  ix.-xiv.,  would  then  give  abundant  and  unmistakable 
evidence. 

Among  the  points  claimed  as  indicating  a  pre-exilio 
date  are  the  references  to  Ephraim  and  Israel  (ix.  10,  13, 
xi.  14)  as  distinct  from  and  exclusive  of  Judah,  the  coupUng 
of  Assyria  and  Egypt  (x.  10, 11)  as  in  Hosea  (but  see  above), 
the  allusions  to  teraphim  and  diviners  (x.  If.);  but  sorcerers 
are  mentioned  in  Mai.  iii.  6 ;  and  Ezekiel,  who  if  Zech. 
ix.-xiv.  be  late,  has  profoundly  influenced  it,  looks  to  the 
restoration  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  as  well  as  of  Judah  (t.e. 
Ezek.  xxxvii.  16  ff. ;  cp.  also  Zech.  xi.  7  ff.).  On  the  other 
hand,  among  the  indications  of  post-exilic  date  are  the 
references  to  captivity  and  dispersion  (ix.  11  f.,  x.  6-9),  and 
the  absence  of  any  reference  to  an  existing  Jewish  monarchy 
combined  with  the  probable  implication  (cp.  p.  188)  in 
xiv.  6  that  the  Jewish  monarchy  was  a  thing  of  the  past. 
The  *  house  of  David  *  retained  its  distinctness  long  into 
the  post-exilic  period  (1  Chr.  iii.  17  ff. ;  Ezra  viii.  2) : 
and  the  reflection  on  the  *  house  of  David,*  and  the  coupUng 
of  it  with  other  families,  seem  far  more  probable  when,  not 
being  the  royal  family,  its  head  did  not  of  right  exercise 
supreme  power  in  the  state.  The  conditions  suggested  by 
such  passages  as  xii.  7,  8,  12,  14,  xiii.  1  do  not  exactly 
corresi)ond  to  what  is  knotm  of  any  period ;  but  the  co- 
ordination of  the  Davidic  and  Levitical  houses,  and  the 
attempt  of  Jerusalem  under  their  leadcrsliip  to  lord  it 
over  the  country  districts  of  Judah  in  a  way  that  was 
resented,  can  much  more  readily  be  explained  by  the  general 


xxin.]         THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS:  MALACHI  231 

conditions  of  post-exilic  than  of  pre-exilic  Judah.  Again, 
do  not  xi.  4-17  depend  on  Ezek.  xxxiv.  and  xxxvii.  16  ff., 
and  xiv.  8  on  Ezek.  xlvii.  1-10,  and  not  vice  versa  ?  Does 
not  xii.  1  owe  its  ring  to  the  Deutero-Isaiah  ?  Are  the 
ideas  in  ix.  7-1  la ;  xii.  2  f.,  9 ;  xiv.  1  f.,  9, 12, 16,  20  f.  more 
likely  to  occur  in  pre-exilic  or  post-exilic  prophecy  ? 


12.  MALAom 

This  book  may  be,  strictly  speaking,  anonymous.  The 
name  Malachi  means  *  my  messenger,'  and  may  have  been 
merely  inferred  from  iii.  1.  In  any  case  it  must  have 
passed  as  the  proper  name  of  the  author  of  the  book,  before 
the  whole  collection  could  receive  the  title  of  *  the  Twelve.' 

The  book  of  Malachi  was  written  during  the  Persian 
period,  while  Judah  was  governed  by  a  pehah,  or  (Persian) 
governor  ;  cp.  e.g.  Hag.  i.  1 ;  Neh.  v.  14.  Moreover,  imply- 
ing as  it  does  the  existence  of  the  Temple  (iii.  1,  10;  cp. 
i.  6-14),  it  must  have  been  written  after  516  B.C.  The  con- 
demnation of  mixed  marriages  (cp.  Ezra  ix.  2,  x. ;  Neh. 
xiii.  23  ff.)  and  slackness  in  the  payment  of  sacred  dues  (cp. 
Neh.  xiii.  10-13)  point  towards  the  period  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah.  The  closer  agreement  of  iii.  10  (cp.  Neh.  x. 
38  f.)  with  Num.  xviii.  21-33  (P)  than  with  Deut.  xiv. 
22-29  in  the  matter  of  tithe  may  merely  reflect  practice 
moving  towards  the  ordinances  of  P,  and  not  famiUarity 
with  P  itself ;  and  certainly  *  Horeb '  in  iv.  4  points  to  the 
influence  not  of  P,  but  of  Deuteronomy.  It  is  doubtful, 
therefore,  whether  it  is  necessary  to  place  Malachi  after 
the  pubHcation  of  P  in  445  B.C.  :  it  may  perhaps  have  been 
written  a  little  before  the  arrival  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
say  c.  460  B.C. 

The  unity  of  the  book  has  been  seldom  questioned; 
yet  to  some  the  condemnation  of  mixed  marriages  in  ii.  11  f. 
appears  to  interrupt  the  connection  between  ii.  10  and  ii. 
13  f.,  to  be  out  of  harmony  with  the  remarkably  universal- 
istic  outlook  of  i.  11,  and,  together  with  some  clauses  in 
ii.  14  f.,  to  be  less  probably  original  than  the  work  of  a 


232   CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [CH. 

supplementer  who  was  anxious  to  condemn  the  faithlessness 
to  Yahweh  involved  in  marriage  with  foreigners  no  less 
than  the  faithlessness  of  man  to  man  (ii.  10),  or  of  a  husband 
in  hghtly  divorcing  the  wife  of  his  youth  (ii.  14-16).  On 
slighter  grounds  iv.  4-6  has  also  been  questioned. 


xzivj  DANIEL  233 


CHAPTER  XXIV 

DANIEL 

Thi  evil  genius  of  this  book,  though,  in  accordance  with  the 
general  rule  of  apocalyptic  literature,  he  is  never  mentioned 
by  name,  is  quite  clearly  Antiochus  Epiphanes  *  (175-164 
B.C.) :  and  the  purpose  of  the  book  is  to  encourage  the 
Jews  not  to  submit  to  his  attempts  to  seduce  or  persecute 
them  into  the  worship  of  Zeus  and  disloyalty  to  their  law, 
but  to  persist  at  whatever  cost  in  their  fidelity  to  God. 
The  method  of  the  book  is  twofold  :  by  stories  (chs.  i.-vi.) 
of  God's  deUvery  and  reward  of  those  who  in  the  past 
faithfully  endured  religious  persecution,  it  encourages  its 
readers  Hkewise  to  endure ;  and,  in  a  series  of  visions 
(chs.  vii.-xii.),  it  interprets  the  past  as  the  unfolding  of 
God's  purpose,  which  is,  within  a  year  or  so,  to  culminate 
in  the  overthrow  of  Antiochus  and  the  Seleucid  empire,  and 
in  the  establishment  on  earth  of  the  everlasting  kingdom  of 
the  Most  High,  whose  vice-gerent  will  be  the  Jewish  nation, 
whom  all  other  kingdoms  will  serve  and  obey. 

In  brief  outline,  the  origin,  purpose,  and  method  of 
Daniel,  as  these  are  now  generally  recognised,  have  been 
stated  at  the  outset ;  for  no  book  of  the  Old  Testament 
more  clearly  bears  its  own  testimony  to  its  date  and 
character  than  this,  however  obscure  or  ambiguous  many 
of  its  details  may  be.  And  yet  for  long  the  traditional 
theory  that  it  is  the  work  of  a  Jewish  captive  at  the  Baby- 
lonian court  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  subsequent 
kings,  was  hotly  defended.     The  chief  facts  which  render 

'  See  especiaUy  vii.  8,  20  f.  ('the  little  horn') ;  Tiii.  9-14,  28-26 ;  ix.  26  f. ; 
xi.  21-46  (xu.  6  ff.).    Cp.  1  Mace.  i.  10-Ti.  17. 


234   CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 

this — ^perhaps  the  least  tenable  of  all  traditional  views 
regarding  the  origin  of  the  Old  Testament  Uterature — 
untenable  may  be  stated  and  their  significance  briefly 
indicated  first ;  and  then  the  reasons  which  point  definitely 
to  the  year  165  as  that  in  which  Daniel  was  actually 
written. 

(1)  Daniel  formed  no  part  of  the  prophetic  canon,  but 
was  included  in  the  Hebrew  scriptures  merely  as  one  of 
*  the  writings  *  (see  ch.  i.).  This,  as  also  the  fact  that 
Daniel  is  not  mentioned  in  Ecclus.  xhx.,  has  not  received, 
and  probably  never  will  receive,  any  other  satisfactory 
explanation  except  that  Daniel  was  not  yet  written  in 
180  B.C.  Further,  the  earKest  certain  reference  to  the  book 
of  Daniel  is  in  1  Mace.  ii.  59-60  (written  c.  90  B.C.). 

(2)  The  language  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the 
theory  that  the  book  was  written  in  Babylon  in  the  sixth 
century  B.C.  The  main  facts  are  these :  (1)  the  book  is 
written  partly  (i.-ii.  4a,  viii.-xii.)  in  Hebrew,  partly  in 
Aramaic  (ii.  4b-vii.).  The  Hebrew  contains  many 
Aramaisms,  words  and  uncouth  constructions  found 
predominantly  or  exclusively  in  the  latest  books  of  the 
Old  Testament :  it  is  thus  sharply  marked  off  from  actual 
writings  of  the  sixth  century  B.C.,  such  as  Ezekiel  and 
Deutero-Isaiah,  but  closely  related  to  Chronicles,  Esther, 
Ecclesiastes.  (2)  The  Aramaic  of  Daniel  is  Western 
Aramaic,  and  closely  alhed  with  that  found  in  the 
Pahnyrene  and  Nabataean  inscriptions  (first  century  B.C. 
— third  century  a.d.),  but  decisively  distinguished  from 
early  Aramaic,  and,  in  particular,  from  the  Aramaic  in  use 
in  Babylon  in  the  sixth  century  B.C.  (3)  Both  the  Hebrew 
and  the  Aramaic  parts  of  the  book  contain  Persian  words  : 
in  the  whole  book  there  are  some  fifteen  at  least :  this 
cannot  naturally  be  explained  if  the  book  was  written 
before,  or  even  immediately  after,  the  overthrow  of  the 
Babylonian  empire  by  Cyrus  in  538  B.C.  (4)  The  book 
also  contains  at  least  three  Greek  words :  these  are 
the  terms  for  some  of  the  musical  instruments  mentioned 
in  ch.  iii.,  viz.:  kitharo8=sKk6apii;  psanterin^rl^akTripioy ; 


arav.]  DANIEL  236 

8umponyah=a-vfi(l><t}viai  these  words  imply  the  dissemina- 
tion of  Greek  culture  that  followed  Alexander's  conquests 
(336-323  B.C.). 

(3)  The  book  implies  an  ignorance  of  the  leading  facts 
of  the  political  history  of  the  sixth  century  B.C.,  such  as 
could  not  have  been  displayed  by  a  contemporary  hving 
at  the  Babylonian  court.  Belshazzar  (chs.  v.,  vii.,  viii.) 
is  represented  as  (a)  the  last  king  of  the  Babylonian  Empire, 
and  (6)  the  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar  :  he  was  neither ;  the 
last  king  of  Babylon  to  whom  Cyrus,  as  his  own  inscriptions 
show,  immediately  succeeded  was  Nabonidus,  who  was 
neither  a  son,  nor  a  descendant  of  Nebuchadnezzar ;  and 
Belshazzar  (Bel-shar-usur)  was  the  son  not  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, but  of  Nabonidus,  and  he  is  called  consistently 
on  contemporary  contract  tablets  *  the  king's  son,'  and  by 
Nabonidus  himself  *  the  chief  (or  firstborn)  son,'  but 
never  even  co-regent,  still  less,  as  in  Daniel,  *  king ' 
absolutely.  Again,  Daniel  represents  a  Median  as  succeed- 
ing to  the  Babylonian  Empire  (v.  31,  vi.,  ix.  1),  the  Median 
being  in  turn  succeeded  by  a  Persian  empire :  see  vi.  28 
and  note  x.  1  (after  ix.  1  and  before  the  backward  reference 
in  xi.  1) ;  note  also  xi.  2.  Thus,  according  to  Daniel,  to  the 
last  king  of  Babylon  succeeds  Darius  the  Mede,  to  Darius 
the  Mede,  Cyrus  the  Persian.  But  since,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  Cyrus  the  Persian  immediately  succeeded  Nabonidus 
the  last  king  of  Babylon,  '  Darius  the  Mede '  and  '  the 
Median  Empire,'  as  represented  in  Daniel,  never  existed ; 
they  may  be  due  to  mistaken  inferences  of  a  late  writer  ; 
they  do  not  correspond  to  any  actual  facts  of  the  sixth 
century  B.C.  It  is,  indeed,  notorious  that  even  wise  and 
cultured  people  do  not  always  spell  correctly  ;  yet  it  would 
be  strange  for  a  wise  and  learned  man  Uke  Daniel  invariably 
to  give  the  name  of  the  king  whom  he  had  served  in  its  incor- 
rect form,  Nebuchadnezzar,  whereas  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel, 
contemporaries  also  indeed,  but  not  attached  to  the  court, 
spell  it  correctly — Nebuchadrezzar.  Smaller,  or  less  certain 
points,  such  as  the  probably  incorrect  statement  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  took  away  some  of  the  sacred  vessels  in 


236   CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [ch. 

the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim  (i.  1),  must  be  passed  over 
here. 

The  foregoing  arguments  prove  not  only  that  the  book 
wag  not  written  in  Babylon  in  the  sixth  century  B.C.,  but 
also  positively  that  it  loaa  written  long  after  that  date  in 
Palestine  :  either  the  second  or  third  line  of  argument 
taken  separately  proves  so  much  as  to  date  :  and  further, 
if  the  argument  from  the  Greek  words  may  govern  the 
whole  book,  then  not  only  ch.  iii.,  but  the  whole  book  was 
written  after  c.  300  B.C.,  and,  if  the  cogency  of  the  first 
argument  be  allowed,  after  c.  180  B.C.  So  far  we  can  go 
without  taking  the  least  account  of  the  predictive  elements 
in  the  book  ;  and  thus  the  statement  often  made  that  the 
rejection  of  the  traditional  view  of  Daniel  rests  on  a  denial 
of  the  possibility  of  particular  predictions  is  as  baseless 
as  the  similar  statement  with  regard  to  Is.  xl.-lxvi. 

In  the  interests  of  the  traditional  theory,  and  to  turn  if 
possible  the  force  of  the  arguments  just  stated,  the  unity 
of  the  book  has  occasionally  been  questioned ;  and 
critical  scholars  also,  now  and  again,  argue  that  different 
parts  of  the  book  are  of  different  origin.  For  example, 
Torrey  and  Kent  have  recently  argued  that  chs.  i.-vi.  were 
written  between  245  and  225  B.C.,  and  that  these  chapters 
greatly  influenced  the  author  of  chs.  vii.-xii.  writing  about 
165,  who  closely  bound  together  his  own  visions  with  the 
earlier  stories.  This  particular  theory  really  admits  the 
substantial  unity  of  the  book  ;  and  such  substantial  unity, 
in  spite  of  the  difference  of  language  which  divides  the 
book  into  two  parts,  and  the  difference  between  stories 
and  visions  which  divides  it  also  into  two  parts,  but 
differently,  it  seems  impossible  to  disprove,  or  even  to 
render  doubtful ;  for  there  are  too  many  marks  of  unity  : 
the  same  erroneous  conceptions  of  a  Median  Empire  and 
of  Belshazzar  as  king  occur  both  in  the  stories  and  the 
,  visions ;  a  remarkable  general  similarity  of  style  pervades 
the  whole  book,  the  same  underlying  purpose  is  easily 
discernible  in  visions  and  stories  alike,  and  there  are  many 
detailed  links  between  different  parts ;   it  is,  for  example, 


XDV.]  DANIEL  287 

almost  certain  that  ii.  43  refers  to  the  same  unfortunate 
marriages  between  Ptolemies  and  Seleucids  as  xi.  6,  17. 
The  difference  in  style  between  Daniel's  prayer  (ix.  4-19) 
may  be  due  to  the  greater  inifluence  exercised  here  by  the 
earlier  literary  models  on  which  the  prayer  is  obviously 
and  confessedly  based. 

Granted  the  unity,  the  date  of  the  whole  book,  and  in 
any  case  of  the  visions,  can  be  very  closely  determined,  if 
we  allow  ourselves  to  be  guided  by  the  analogy  of  other 
apocalyptic  Uterature :  for  it  is  characteristic  of  much  of 
this  Uterature  for  the  author  to  assume  the  standpoint  of 
some  one  belonging  to  a  more  or  less  remote  age,  and  then 
to  include  under  the  form  of  prediction  both  what  to  him 
was  actually  history  of  the  past,  and  what  was,  in  reaHty  as 
well  as  in  form,  prediction  of  the  future  ;  for  example  the 
author  of  Enoch  Ixxxiii.-xc.  (written  perhaps  about  160 
B.C.)  passes  in  review  both  past  history  reaching  back  to 
Adam,  and  also  what  he  expected  the  Messianic  future  to 
be ;  but  the  whole  review  takes  the  form  of  prediction, 
and  (another  point  in  common  with  some  of  the  visions  of 
Daniel)  different  classes  of  men  are  represented  by  different 
animals.  The  same  method  is  pursued,  for  example,  in 
the  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  the  Sibylline 
Oracles,  book  m.,  and  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch.  If,  as  is 
surely  the  case,  this  method  is  also  the  method  of  Daniel, 
there  is  no  room  for  doubt,  within  a  year  or  so  at  most,  as 
to  the  point  at  which,  in  the  several  visions,  history  ceases 
and  prediction  begins,  and  consequently  as  to  the  time  at 
which  the  visions  were  written :  it  is  towards  the  end  of 
the  reign  of  Antiochus — after  *  the  abomination  of  desola- 
tion '  was  set  up  in  Dec.  168  (1  Mace.  i.  54),  after  the 
Maccabasan  revolt  had  begun  (Dan.  xi.  31-35)  in  167,  but, 
since  the  need  for  encouragement  is  still  obviously  great, 
probably  before  the  great  successes  of  Judah,  and  the 
purification  of  the  Temple  in  Dec.  165,  i.e.  early  in  165 
or  perhaps  even  in  166  B.C.  Some,  however,  infer  from  the 
precise  (yet  varying)  definitions  of  the  period  of  the 
pollution  of  the  altar  (Dan,  viii.  14,  xii.  11)  that  Dec.  166 


238  CRinOAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT  [oh. 

also  belongs  to  the  writer's  past,  and  that  the  date  of  the 
visions  is  early  in  164.  In  any  case  an  absolute  terminus 
ad  quern  is  fixed  by  Antiochus's  death  later  in  164  :  this  is 
'predicted  by  the  author,  correctly  as  to  the  date,  incorrectly 
as  to  the  place  of  it ;  Antiochus  died  not  in  Palestine 
(Dan.  xi.  45),  but  in  Persia. 

The  question  whether  and  how  far  the  story  of  Daniel 
at  the  Babylonian  court,  and  of  those  with  whom  in  the 
story  he  is  associated,  rests  on  a  historical  basis  has  the 
same  kind  of  importance  as  the  kindred  questions  with 
regard  to  Job,  Jonah  and  Esther.  When  it  is  raised,  it 
is  best  raised  under  the  larger  question  of  what  may  be 
the  traditional  elements  in  Daniel ;  for  these  are  probably 
not  confined  to,  even  though  they  may  include,  historical 
facts ;  the  question  of  mythological  elements,  which  may 
be  found  in  ch.  vii.  not  less  than  in  the  story  of  Bel  and  the 
Dragon  appended  to  the  Greek  Daniel,  must  also  be  con- 
sidered ;  and  a  kindred  inquiry  will  examine  the  extent  to 
which  some  details  were  determined  by  the  learned  study 
of  Scripture  (Dan.  ix.  2) ;  for  example,  is  the  Median 
Empire  an  erroneous  inference  from  Is.  xiii.  17  ? 

It  is  certainly  possible  that  among  Jewish  captives  in 
Babylon  was  one  named  Daniel,  though  it  is  very  ques- 
tionable whether  the  references  in  Ezek.  xiv.  14,  xxviii.  3 
are  to  such  an  one  ;  it  is  possible,  too,  that  such  a  captive 
obtained  some  position  at  court  and  persisted  in  a 
vegetarian  diet ;  possible,  again,  that  for  a  short  period 
(scarcely  for  *  seven  years ')  Nebuchadnezzar  fell  a  victim 
to  madness.  But  it  must  be  left  to  the  historian  to  pursue, 
if  he  will,  his  perilous  path  among  these  and  other  possi- 
biUties.  To  the  student  of  the  Old  Testament  literature 
as  an  expression  of  the  life  and  thought  and  religion  of 
the  Jews,  the  question  is  of  minor  importance ;  for  the 
writer's  whole  interest  is  centred  not  on  recording  fact, 
but  on  achieving  a  practical  purpose,  and  expressing  certain 
ideas.  And  the  dominating  conception  of  the  book  is 
that  history  is  the  unfolding  of  the  divine  purposes,  and 
a  movement  towards  an  end,  to  wit,  a  universal  and  ever- 


XDV.]  DANIEL  239 

lasting  kingdom  of  righteousness.  This  conception  is 
prophetic,  and  is  found,  for  example,  in  Isaiah  as  well  as 
in  Daniel ;  but  Daniel,  who  was  followed  by  other 
apocalyptic  writers,  illustrates  it  from  a  wider  survey  of 
history,  a  survey,  too,  which,  however  defective  in  some 
of  its  details,  is  accurate  enough  in  its  perception  of  one 
empire,  great  through  its  conquests  and  the  material 
resources  under  its  control,  succeeding  another,  only  itself 
in  time  to  collapse.  His  conception  of  the  everlasting 
Kingdom  of  God  may  have  its  hmitations,  but  it  is  unfor- 
tunate that  a  mistaken  apologetic  in  the  past  has  over- 
shadowed, and  it  would  be  unfortunate  if  any  undue 
emphasis  in  the  future  on  a  possible  historical  basis  for  some 
details  of  the  story  should  continue  to  overshadow,  the 
nobiUty  of  the  thought  of  which  story  and  visions  are  but 
the  clothing.  Job,  Jonah,  Daniel  all  aUke  derive  certain 
elements  from  ancient  mythology,  ancient  story  or  ancient 
history  :  but  all  also  owe  their  significance  to  other  things 
than  these :  they  are  not  records  of  historical  fact ;  as 
such  their  value  would  be  negligible ;  but  they  are  ex- 
pressions of  faith  in  the  constant  presence  of  God  in  the 
individual  Ufe,  in  the  all-embracing  care  of  God  for  all  his 
creatures,  in  the  wise  and  righteous  purposes  of  God 
working  themselves  out  in  all  human  history.  And  thus 
do  the  authors  of  these  books,  each  in  his  own  way  and 
each  by  the  use  of  a  different  hterary  form,  express  some 
of  the  greatest  of  those  ideas  which  give  abiding  value  to 
ancient  Jewish  literature  and  its  significance  to  Jewish 
history. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


{MaMy  of  recent  tvorks) 

The  most  important  general  treatment  is  S.  R.  Driver,  An  Inirth 
duction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  TestamerU  (Ist  ed.  1891 ;  0th  ed, 
(revised  and  enlarged)  1897  ;  8th  ed.  (revised)  1909). 

Important,  as  illustrating  the  history  and  growing  thoroughness 
of  the  modern  critical  examination  of  the  Old  Testament  Uterature, 
are:  Thomas  Hobbes,  Leviathan  (1661),  oh.  xxxiii. ;  B.  Spinoza, 
Tractatua  Theologico-Poliiicus  (1671),  chs.  viii.-x. ;  R.  Simon,  His- 
toire  Critique  du  vieux  TestamerU  (1678) ;  J.  G.  Eichhom,  Eirdeitung 
in  das  A.  T.  (1780-83);  W.  M.  L.  de  Wette,  Lehrhuch  der  hist.- 
hrit.  Eirdeitung  in  die  canon,  u.  apocryph.  Biicher  des  A.  T.  (1817) ; 
8th  ed.,  by  Schrader,  1869.  (Cp.  L.  Diestel,  Oeschichte  des  Alten 
Testaments  in  der  chrisUichen  Kirche,  1869  (a  history  of  inter- 
pretation and  criticism) ;  T.  K.  Cheyne,  Founders  of  Old  Testament 
Criticism,  1893 ;  0.  A.  Briggs,  General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of 
Holy  Scripture  (1899),  ch.  xL  ;  G.  B.  Gray,  art.  'Bible'  (0.  T. 
Criticism)  in  Encyc,  Brit,  11th  ed.  (1910)). 

Among  other  and  more  recent  general  works  are  the  Introductions 
by  Block  (of  which  ed.  2  was  translated  into  English,  and  ed.  4, 
but  not  ed.  6,  was  revised  by  Wellhausen),  Kuenen  (English  trans- 
lation of  part  i.  by  Wicksteed,  entitled  The  Hexateuch),  Keil,  Konig, 
Comill  (Eng.  trans,  by  Box),  C.  H.  H.  Wright  (ed.  1,  1890;  ed.  2, 
1898  ;  brief,  but  with  fuU  bibliographies  to  date),  Wildeboer,  W.  W. 
von  Baudissin,  Lucien  Gautier,  W.  H.  Bennett,  J.  M'Fadyen,  Sellin 
Steuemagel.  See  also  W.  R.  Smith,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jeunsh 
Church;  E.  Reuss,  Die  Oeschichte  der  Heiligen  Schriften  des  Alten 
Testaments ;  K.  Budde,  Oesch.  der  altheb.  Literatur ;  E.  Kautzsch, 
Outlines  of  the  History  of  the  Literature  of  the  O.  T.  (a  translation 
of  a  part  of  Die  Heiligen  Schriften,  etc. :   see  below). 

A  critical  study  of  the  literature  is  bound  up  with  the  history 
of  Israel,  and  receives  attention  in  the  larger  histories,  e.g.  of  Ewald 
(translated),  Stade,  Kittel  (ed.  1  only  translated),  Wellhausen  (vol.  L 
translated  by  J.  S.  Black  under  the  title.  The  History  of  Israel — 
very  important).  In  the  same  way,  a  natural  connection  between 
the  Bubjecta  is  the  oauae  of  critical  discussions  or  remarks  in  soma 
MO 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  241 

of  the  works  on  Old  Testament  theology ;  see  especially  B.  Stade, 
Biblische  Theologie  des  Alten  Testaments  (voL  L ;  voL  ii.  by  Bertholet); 
R.  Smend,  Alttest.  Religionsgeschichte. 

The  Encyclopcedia  Biblica  (ed.  T.  K.  Cheyne  and  J.  S.  Black) 
and  Hastings's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  may  be  consulted,  especially 
on  each  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament ;  also  the  Encyc.  Brit- 
annica  (ed.  9,  with  many  articles  by  W.  R.  Smith,  and  ed.  11). 
Briefer  but  also  useful  are  Hasting8*s  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  in  One 
Volume  i  and  A  Standard  Bible  Dictionary  (ed.  M.  A.  Jacobus). 
All  of  these  are  written  more  or  less  completely  from  what  is  com- 
monly described  as  a  critical  standpoint.  Smith's  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible  may  still  be  consulted  for  conservative  theories ;  a  more 
recent  and  also  briefer  conservative  work  is  Murray's  Illustrated 
Bible  Dictionary  (ed.  W.  0.  Piercy). 

C.  F.  Kent,  The  Student's  Old  Testament ;  and  Die  Heilige  Schrift 
des  A,  T.f  by  various  German  scholars  under  the  editorship  of 
E.  Kautzsch,  will  be  found  valuable  for  the  critical  translations 
(with  indications  of  sources,  etc.)  contained  in  them.  Critical 
translations  into  English  will  also  be  found  in  S.  B.  0.  T.,  and  of 
the  poetical  parts  of  the  0.  T.  in  /.  C,  C,  (abbreviations  explained 
below). 

On  the  bearing  of  Archaeology  on  Criticism,  see  A.  H.  Sayce, 
The  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments  (in  the  main  conservative), 
and  many  contributions  to  the  Expository  Times ;  S.  R.  Driver  in 
Authority  and  Archceology  (ed.  D.  G.  Hogarth),  pp.  1-162. 


CHAPTER  n 

K  H.'  Graf,  Die  geschichtlichen  Biicher  des  A.  T,,  186(5 ;   G.  F. 

Moore, '  Historical  Literature  '  (art.  in  Encyc.  Biblica,  vol.  ii.,  1901) ; 
G.  B.  Gray,  '  The  Comparative  Study  of  Semitic  Literature '  {Con- 
temporary Review,  July  1907). 

References  to  series  of  commentaries  on  the  Old  Testament  in 
the  following  special  bibliographical  notes  are  thus  abbreviated : — 

as.  .        .        .The  Cambridge  Bible  (ed.  A.  F.  Kirk- 

Patrick). 
CENT.  B.     ,         ,         .The  Century  Bible  (ed.  W.  F.  Adeney). 
I.  a  a       •         •         ,     International  Critical  Commentary  (ed. 

S.  R.  Driver  and  C.  Briggs). 
H.  K.  •         ,         ,     Handkomm^ntarzumA.T.{ed.'biOwa.ck), 

K.  0.  H.  S.  •         ,     Kurzgefasstes      Comment,      z.     d.     hlg 

Schriften  (ed.  Strack  and  Zockler). 
K.  E.  H.      •         ,         ,     Kurzgefasstes  exegelisches  Handbuch. 
K.  H.  o.      •        •        •    Kurzes  Handcommentar  (ed.  Marti). 

Q 


242    CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT 

S.  B.  o.  T.  .  .  ,  The  Sacred  Books  of  the  Old  TestamerU 
(critical  translation  with  notes)  (ed. 
P.  Haupt). 

WBST.  COM.  •  •  Westminster  CofomeTUaries  (ed.  W. 
Lock). 

Of  these  commentaries  the  fullest  is  7.  C.  C,  and  this  alone  of  the 
English  series  pays  systematic  attention  to  the  Hebrew  text. 

The  aim  of  the  West.  Com.  is  to  supply  something  intermediate 
in  extent  and  detail  between  C.  B.  and  Cent.  B.,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  /.  C.  C.  on  the  other :  yet  in  some  cases  C.  B.  is  fuller  than 
West.  Com.  Of  the  German  series  H.  K.  is  generally  fuller  than 
K.  H.  C,  and  includes  an  independent  critical  translation. 
K.  C.  H.  8.  is  conservative.  English  conservative  series,  such  as 
the  Speaker's  CormnerUari/f  are  now  unfortunately  for  the  most 
part  antiquated. 

S.  B.  0.  T.  is  a  fresh  translation  based  on  a  critical  text  (pub- 
lished separately  with  textual  notes)  with  notes;  the  different 
sources  in  the  several  books  are  distinguished  by  printing  in  different 
colours. 

Under  most  of  the  books  the  English  commentary  which  is  the 
fullest  or  most  recent  or  otherwise  the  most  suitable  (though  in 
many  cases  others  would  be  almost  equally  suitable)  for  the  further 
pursuit  of  subjects  opened  up  in  this  book,  is  distinguished  by 
printing  the  author's  name  in  heavy  type.  The  commentaries  are 
mentioned  in  (approximately)  chronological  older. 


CHAPTERS  m-VI 

Commentaries : — 

1.  On  the  Pentateuch :  by  Dillmann  {K.  E.  H. ;  voL  L,  Genesis, 
translated) ;  Strack  (Gen.-Num.),  and  OettU  (Deut.)  {K.  C.  H.  S.) 

2.  On  separate  books  : — 

(a)  Genesis:  by  Delitzsch,  Wade,  Holzinger  {K,  H,  C), 
Gunkel  {H.  K. :  important),  Driver  {West.  Com. :  impor- 
tant), Bennett  {Cent.  5.),  Skinner  (7.  C.  C). 

{b)  On  Exodus :  by  Kalisch,  Holzinger  {K.  H.  C).  Bftntsch 
{H.  Z.),  Bennett  {CenL  B.),  M'Neile  {West.  Com.),  Driver, 
{C.  B.). 

ifi)  On  Leviticus :  by  Kalisch,  Driver  and  White  {8.  B.  0.  T.), 
Bantsch  {E.  K.)y  Bertholet  {K.  H.  C),  Kennedy  {Cent.  B.). 

(<f)  On  Numbers :  by  Gray  (/.  C.  C),  Bantech  {H.  Z.),  Holz- 
inger  {K.  H.  0.),  Kennedy  {Cent  B.),  M'NeUe  {C.  B.). 

(«)  On  Deuteronomy  :  by  Driver  (7.  C.  C),  Steuemagel  {H.  K,y 
Bertholet  {K.  H,  C),  Robinson  {Ceni.  B.). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  243 

English  translations  displaying  the  literary  analysis  will  be 
found  in  J.  E.  Carpenter  and  G.  Harford-Battersby,  The  Hexateuch, 
vol.  ii. ;  W.  E.  Addis,  The  Documents  of  the  Hexateiuih ;  B.  W. 
Bacon,  The  Genesis  of  Genesis,  and  The  Trifle  Tradition  of  the 
ExodMS  (see  also  above,  p.  241). 

Of  general  introductory  works  on  the  Pentateuch  (or  Hezateuch) 
the  most  important  are  vol.  i.  of  The  Hexateuch,  by  J.  E.  Carpenter 
and  G.  Harford-Battersby  (published  also  separately  under  the 
title.  The  Composition  of  the  Hexatetich) ;  H.  Holzinger,  Einleitung 
in  den  Hex. ;  A.  Kuenen,  The  Hexateuch  (translation  by  P.  Wick- 
steed  of  vol.  i.  of  Hist.-criU  Onderzoek,  etc.) ;  A.  T.  Chapman,  An 
Introduction  to  the  Pentateuch  (briefer  and  simpler  than  the  fore- 
going, but  excellent).  See  also  the  relevant  sections  of  the  general 
introductions  and  other  works  mentioned  above,  and  the  articles 
in  Encyc.  Biblica  on  '  Historical  Literature '  (G.  F.  Moore),  and 
*  Law  Literature  '  (G.  B.  Gray). 

For  Uterature  on  special  aspects  of  the  subject  the  foregoing 
general  works  must  be  consulted :  it  must  suffice  here  to  refer  to 
a  very  few  of  the  more  important.  Astnic's  work  (cited,  p.  19) 
marks  the  starting-point,  and  H.  Hupfeld's  Die  Quellen  der  Genesis, 
an  important  stage,  in  the  detailed  literary  analysis  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch ;  W.  M.  L.  de  Wette's  Beitrdge  zur  Einl.  in  das  A,  T.  (1806), 
established  the  seventh-century  origin  of  Deuteronomy;  Ewald's 
History  of  Israel  (1st  ed.  (GJerman),  1843,  3rd  ed.  (German),  1863) 
was  very  influential  in  promoting  the  theory  that  the  chronological 
order  of  the  documents  was  PJED ;  important  founders  of  the  now 
prevalent  view  that  the  order  was  JEDP  were  Vatke,  Georg,  Reuss, 
Graf  {Die  geschichtUchen  Biicher  des  A.  T.,  1866) ;  but  the  classical 
exposition  of  it  is  to  be  found  in  J,  Wellhausen,  Die  Composition  des 
Hexateuchs  und  der  hist.  Biicher  des  A.  T.  (1889,  ed.  3,  1899)  and 
Prolegomena  zur  Gesch.  Israel's  (1878  ;  ed.  7,  1905) ;  the  latter  was 
translated  into  English  by  J.  S.  Black,  under  the  title  History  of 
Israel  (1885). 

Of  recent  opponents  of  the  modem  critical  movement  in  general 
it  must  suffice  to  refer  to  three :  Hommel,  Die  altisraelitische  Vher- 
lieferung  (translated  with  serious  omissions) ;  J.  Orr,  Th£  Problem 
of  the  Old  Testament  (1906);  H.  M.  Wiener,  Essays  on  Pentateuchal 
Criticism  (1909),  and  also  many  articles  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra.  The 
tendency  of  these  writers  is  towards  traditional  views.  The 
position  of  B.  Eerdmans  {Die  Composition  der  Genesis,  1908 ;  Die 
Vorge^chichte  Israels,  1908  ;  Exodus,  1910 ;  Leviticus,  1912)  is  diffe- 
rent :  he  breaks  away  from  the  Graf- Wellhausen  position,  but  at 
the  same  time,  if  possible,  still  further  from  the  traditional  position. 

For  a  brief  description  and  criticism  of  Eerdmans*  theories,  seo 
S.  R.  Driver,  Genesis  (Addenda  ii,  1910),  pp.  xlii-xliv. 


244  CKITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT 

CHAPTER  Vn 

Commentaries  on  Joshua  by  Dillmann  {K.  E.  H.),  Oettli  {K.  G, 
H.  jS.),  Steueraagel  {H.  K.),  Bennett  {8,  B.  0,  T.),  Holzinger 
{H.  K.),  Robinson  {Cent.  B.). 

Commentaries  on  Judges  by  Oettli  {K.  C  .H.  8.\  Moore  (/.  C.  C). 
Budde  {K.  H.  C),  Nowack  {H.  K.),  Thatcher  {Cent.  J5.),  Lagrange 
{Le  Lime  des  Juges)^  G.  A.  Cooke  {G.  B. :  neariy  ready). 

On  Joshua,  see,  also,  most  of  the  literature  cited  above  for  the 
Pentateuch.  On  both  books  Wellhausen,  Die  Composition  des 
HexateuchSt  etc.  (see  above). 

CHAPTER  Vin 

Commentaries  by  Kirkpatrick  (C7.  J?.),  Thenius-Lohr  {K,  E.  H.), 
Klostermann  (Z.  C.  H.  S.),  H.  P.  Smith  (7.  G.  C),  Budde  {K.  H.  C), 
Nowack  {H.  Z.),  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy  {Cent,  i5.),  Dhorme  {Les  Livres 
de  Samuel). 

Wellhausen,  Der  Text  der  Bucher  Samuelis  and  Die  Composition 
(full  title  above) ;  Driver,  Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Books  of 
Samuel  (ed.  1,  out  of  print ;  ed.  2,  in  preparation) ;  S.  A.  Cook, 
Critical  Notes  on  the  Old  Testament  History ;  The  Traditions  of  Saul 
and  David. 

CHAPTER  IX 

Commentaries  by  Klostermann  {K.G.H.S.),  Benzinger  {K.H.G.\ 
Kittel  {H.  K.),  Burney  {Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Book  of 
Kings),  Skinner  {Cent.  B. ),  Barnes  {C.  B. ).  See  also  Stade  {8.  B.  0,  T, 
Hebrew  text  and  notes ;  English  translation  not  published). 

CHAPTER  X 

Commentaries  by  Oettli  {K.  G.  H,  5.),  Barnes  {G.  A),  Benzinger 
{K.  H.  C),  Kittel  (H.  K.),  Harvey- Jellie  {Cent.  J5.),  B.  L.  Curtis 
and  Madsen  (7.  G.  C.).  See  also  literature  cited  under  ch.  ii.,  and 
Wellhausen,  Prolegomena  (Eng.  trans. — History  of  Israel),  ch.  vi 
(important) ;  Bennett,  '  Chronicles '  (in  the  Expositor's  Bible,) 

CHAPTER  XI 

Commentaries  by  Bertheau-Ryssel  {K.  E.  H.),  Oettli  {K.  G.  H.  8.\ 
Ryle  {G.  B.),  Siegfried  {H.  K.),  Bertholet  {K.  H.  C),  T.  W.  Da  vies 
(Cent  B.,  with  discussion  of  recent  theories). 

Ed.  Meyer,  Die  Entstehung  des  Judenthums  (defends  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  Aramaic  documento) ;  C.  C  Torrey,  Ezra-Studies 
(very  radical,  but  important). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  246 

CHAPTER  Xn 

Commentaries  on  Ruth  by  Bertheau  {K.  E.  H.\  Oettli  (K,  C.  H,  8,) 
Nowack  {H.  K.),  ThatcHer  {Cent.  B.),  Bertholet  {K.  H.  C.) 

Commentaries  on  Esther  by  Bertheau-Ryssel  {K.  E,  H.),  Wilde- 
boer  {K.  H.  C),  Siegfried  {H.  K.),  Streane  (C.  B.),  T.  W.  Davies 
{Cent,  jB.),  Haupt,  Paton  (/.  C.  C). 

CHAPTER  Xm 

Commentaries  by  Delitzsch  (first  edition  only  translated  into 
English),  Dillmann  {K.  E.  H.),  Hitzig,  Davidson  (C.  B.\  Gibson 
{West.  C.),  Budde  {H.  K. :  argues  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Elihu 
speeches),  Duhm  {K.  H.  C),  Ley,  Peake  {Cent.  B.). 

Renan,  Le  Livre  de  Job  (translation  and  introduction) ;  Bradley, 
Lectures  on  the  Book  of  Job ;  T.  K.  Cheyne,  Job  and  Solomon ; 
Davidson,  TTie  Book  of  Job,  vol.  i.  (1862:  all  published);  Ewald, 
Die  Didder  des  Alten  BundeSy  part  iii.  (translated) ;  Helen  H. 
Nichols,  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  (reprinted  from 
the  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages  and  Literature,  vol. 
xxvii.,  1911) ;  G.  Bickell,  Das  Buch  Job  (a  reconstruction  on  the 
basis  of  the  LXX.  and  of  a  metrical  theory;  cp.  Dillon,  The 
Skeptics  of  the  Old  Testament) ;  E.  Hatch,  Essays  in  Biblical  Greek 
(Essay  VI.) ;  C.  H.  Toy,  '  Wisdom  Literature '  (in  Encyc,  Biblica); 
S.  R.  Driver,  The  Book  of  Job. 

CHAPTER  XIV 

Commentaries  by  Olshausen,  Ewald  (in  the  Dichter  des  A,  B. : 
translated),  Hupfeld-Nowack  {K.  E.  H.\  Hitzig,  Perowne,  Dehtzsch 
(translated),  Gratz,  Cheyne  (1888),  Kirkpatrick  {C.  B.),  Wellhausen 
{S.  B.  0.  T.),  Baethgen  {H,  K,),  Duhm  {K.  H.  C),  Briggi  (/.  C,  C), 
W.  T.  Davison  and  T.  W.  Davies  {Cent.  B.), 

The  Psalms  Chronologically  Arranged,  by  Four  Friends  (based  on 
Ewald) ;  T.  K.  Cheyne,  The  Historical  Origin  and  Religious  Ideas 
of  the  Psalter  (important,  though  the  writer  modified  much  that 
he  had  written  both  here  and  in  his  commentary  of  1888,  in  his 
later  work.  The  Book  of  Psalms,  1903) ;  W.  T.  Davison,  The  Praises 
of  /sraeZ. —-Smend  in  the  Zeitschr.  fur  die  a.  t.  Wissenschaft,  viii. 
49  ff  and  G.  Beer,  Individuel  u.  Gemeinde  Psalmen  (on  the  '  I '  of 
the  Psalter :  cp.  G.  B.  Gray,  the  *  References  to  the  King  in  the 
Psalter,*  in  the  Jewish  Quarterly  Review,  July  1896,  pp.  656-686). 

CHAPTER  XV 

Commentaries  by  Hitzig,  Delitzsch,  Nowack  {K,  E,  H.),  Strack 
{K,  C,  H.  S.),  Wildeboer  {K.  H.  C),  Frankenberg  {H,  K.),  Toy 
(/.  C.  C),  Perowne  {C,  B.),  Martin  {CenL  B), 


246   CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT 

W.  T.  Davison,  The  Wisdom  Literature  of  OieO.T.iT.K.  GheyiM^ 
Job  and  Solomon ;  Ewald,  Die  SaL  Schriften, 


CHAPTER  XVI 

Commentaries  by  BQtzig  -  Nowack  {K.  E.  H.),  Ginsbttrg  (with 
extensive  history  of  exegesis),  Gr&tz,  Tyler,  DeUtzsch,  Plumptre 
(C  B.),  Siegfried  {H.  K.\  Wildeboer  (Z.  H,  C),  Martin  {CenL  B,), 
Barton  (7.  C,  C),  Podechard  {UEcdisiasU). 

H.  Ewald,  Die  Dichter  des  Alien  Bundes),  pt.  ii. ;  Renan, 
UEccUsiaMe  (translation  and  introduction) ;  0.  H.  H.  Wright, 
Ecclesiastes ;  Q.  Q.  Bradley,  Lectures  on  Ecdesiastes ;  T.  K.  Cheyne, 
Job  and  Solomon;  A.  H.  M'Neile,  An  Introduction  to  the  Booh 
of  Ecclesiastes,  Different  radical  rearrangements  of  Ecclesiastes 
are  suggested  in  G.  Bickell,  Der  Prediger  aber  den  Wert  des  Daseins ; 
and  P.  Haupt,  KoheUih, 


CHAPTER  XVn 

Commentaries  by  Hitzig  {K,  E.  H,),  Ginsbnrg,  Delitzsch,  Grfttz, 
Oettli  (Z.  C.  H.  S.),  Castelli  {II  Cantico  dei  Cantici),  Rothstein 
(important)  (cp.  Hastings's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  iv.  589  flf) ; 
Minocchi  {II  Cantico  dei  Cantici)^  Budde  {K.  H.  C)»  Siegfried 
{H.  K.)y  A.  Harper  {G.  B.),  Martin  {Cent.  B.),  ZapletaL 

H.  Ewald,  Die  Dichter  des  AUen  Bundes,*  iii.  333-426;  Renan, 
Le  Cantiqu£.  des  Canliques  (translation  and  introduction);  P. 
Haupt,  Th€  Boole  of  Canticles, 


CHAPTER  XVm 

Commentaries  byThenius  {K.  E.  H,),  Nftgelsbach,  Streane  {C,  B.), 
Oettli  {K.  C,  H,  S,),  Lohr  {H.  K.),  Minocchi  (Le  Lamentazioni  di 
Oeremia),  Budde  {K.  H.  C),  Peake  {Cent.  B.). 

Ewald,  Die  Dichter  des  A.  B.  (Pt.  i.,  second  half :  Die  PscUmen 
und  dit  Klagelieder :  English  translation). 


CHAPTER  XIX 

Ewald,  Die  Propheten  des  AUen  Bundes;  A,  Kuenen,  Prophets 
and  Prophecy  in  Israel ;  W.  R.  Smith,  Tf^e  Prophets  of  Israel ;  E. 
Konig,  Der  Offenbarungshegriff  des  A.  T. ;  C.  H.  Comill,  Der.  Isr, 
Propheiismus  (translated,  Chicago) ;  Giesebrecht,  Beitrdge  zur 
Jesaiakritik  nebst  einer  Slvdie  uber  propheiische  SchriftsteUerei.  The 
articles  on  'Prophetic  Literature'  in Encyc.Biblica,  and  on  'Prophecy 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  «47 

and  Plrophets '  in  Hastings's  Diet,  of  the  Bible ;  and  the  introduc- 
tions to  the  volumes  on  *  Isaiah,'  and  *  Hosea  and  Amos '  in  I.  C,  C. 

On  the  theology  of  the  Prophets,  see,  in  addition  to  the  general 
works  on  Old  Testament  theology,  B,  Duhm,  Die  Theologie  der 
Propheien.  For  the  effect  on  the  criticism  of  the  Prophets  of  the 
theory  that  certain  eschatological  ideas  first  arose  after  the  Exile 
see,  in  addition  to  the  more  recent  commentaries  mentioned  in  the 
bibliography  below  (chs.  xx.-xxiii.),  many  articles  by  Stade  in  the 
Zeiischr.  fur  die  a.t.  Wissenschaft ;  Wellhausen,  Die  kleinen  Prophe- 
ien ;  P.  Volz,  Die  vorexilische  Jahweprophetie  u,  der  Messias ;  for  a 
reaction  against  these  arguments,  see  Gressmann,  Der  Ursprung 
der  israelitisch-jiidischen  Eschatologie ;  Sellin,  Der  alttestamentliche 
Prophetismits, 

CHAPTER  XX 

[An  extensive  bibliography  to  Isaiah  is  attached  to  art  *  Isaiah  * 
in  Hastings's  Diet,  of  the  Bible.] 

Commentaries  by  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Dillmann  {K.  E.  H.)y  Delitzsch, 
Cheyne  [S.  B.  0.  T. :  also  an  earUer  and  fuller  commentary), 
Orelli,  Skinner  (C.  B.),  Marti  {K.  U.  C),  Whitehouse  {Cent.  B.), 
M'Fadyen,  Wade  {West.  C),  Gray  and  Feake  (/.  C.  C, :  vol  L  on  i.- 
xxvii. ;  voL  ii.  not  yet  published). 

S.  R.  Driver,  Isaiahy  his  Life  and  Times ;  G.  A.  Smith,  '  Isaiah  * 
(in  the  Expositor's  Bible) ;  Cheyne,  An  Introduction  to  the  Book  of 
Isaiah  (important :  very  full) ;  G.  H.  Box,  The  Book  of  Isaiah 
(critical translation, etc.);  A.  Condamin,  Le  Livre  d'Isaxe;  Glazebrook, 
Studies  in  the  Book  of  Isaiah ;  Kennett,  The  Composition  of  the 
Book  of  Isaiah,  criticised  by  C.  F.  Burney  in  The  Church 
Quarterly  Review,  1912,  April,  pp.  99-126;  Oct.  pp.  99-139. 

See  aliBO  under  eh.  zix. 


CHAPTER  XXI 

Oommentaries  by  Hitzig  {K.  E,  H.\  Graf,  Keil,  Orelli,  Giesebrecht 
{H,  K.),  Streane  (C.  5.),  Duhm  (Z.  H.  C),  Comill,  Peake  {CerU.  B.). 

Streane,  TJie  Double  Text  of  Jeremiah ;  Driver,  The  Book  of  the 
Prophet  Jeremiah,  a  revised  translation,  etc.    See  also  under  oh.  zix. 


CHAPTER  XXn 

Oommentaries  by  Hitzig-Smend  {K.  E.  H.),  Keil,  Comill,  Orelli 
(K,  G,  H,  8,),  Davidson  {C.  B.),  Bertholet  {K.  H.  C),  Toy  {S.  B.  0.  T,) 
Kraetzschmar  {H.  K.),  Redpath  ( West.  Com.),  Lofthouse  {Cent,  B.), 


248   CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

Oommentaries  on  'the  Twelve'  by  Hitzig  {K,  E.  B.),  Keil, 
Puaey,  Orelli,  Wellhausen,  Nowack  {H.  K.\  Marti,  {K,  H.  0.)» 
Eiselen,  Van  Hoonacker;  on  Hoaea-Micah  by  Horton,  and  on 
Nahum-Malachi  by  Driver  {Cent.  B.).  In  /.  C.  C.  Harper  writes 
on  Hosea  and  Amos  ;  J.  M.  P.  Smitli  on  Micah,  Zephaniah,  Nahum, 
Malachi ;  Bewer  on  Obadiah,  Joel,  Jonah  ;  Ward  on  Habakkuk ; 
and  Mitohell  on  Haggai  and  Zechariah.  In  C.  B.  Driver  writes  on 
Joel  and  Amos;  Cheyno  on  Micah  and  Hosea;  Davidson  on 
Nahum,  Habakkuk,  Zephaniah. 

G.  A.  Smith,  '  The  Book  of  the  Twelve  Prophets  *  (in  the  Exposi- 
tor's Bible) ;  Stonehouse,  Comm.  on  Habakkuk ;  A.  S.  Peake,  The 
Problem  of  Suffering,  pp.  151-171  (App.  A.,  *  Recent  Criticism  of 
Habakkuk*).    See  also  under  oh.  ziz. 


CHAPTER  XXIV 

Commentaries  by  Hitzig  {K.  E,  £?.),  Ewald  (in  Di$  Propheten, 
etc.),  Keil,  Delitzsch,  Meinhold  {K.  C.  H.  8.),  Behrmann  {H.  K.), 
J.  D.  Prince,  Bevan  (important),  Driver  (C.  £.),  Marti  {K.  H.  C). 

For  a  learned  defence  of  the  traditional  view  of  Daniel,  English 
students  may  still  best  turn  to  E.  B.  Pusey,  TJie  Book  of  Daniel. 
On  the  language  of  the  book,  see,  in  addition  to  the  discussions  in 
the  commentaries  {e.g.  of  Bevan  and  Driver),  the  later  discussion 
in  the  last  (eighth)  edition  of  Driver's  Introd.  to  tht  Lit.  of  the  0.  T., 
pp.  501-508.  R.  D.  Wilson  in  an  essay  on  the  *  Aramaic  of  Daniel  * 
in  Biblical  and  Theological  Studies  (1912),  by  members  of  the 
Faculty  of  Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  attempts  to  prove  that 
the  Aramaic  could,  or  even  must,  have  been  written  *  in  Babylon 
at  about  600  B.C.'  For  a  brief  survey  and  appreciation  of  the 
literature  on  Daniel,  gee  Driver's  Comm.,  pp.  cii-cvi.  A  survey  of 
Apocalyptic  literature  is  given  under  that  heading  by  R.  H.  Charles 
in  Encyc.-Biblica.  On  the  methods  of  Apocalypse,  cp.  the  com- 
mentaries (with  English  translations)  on  Enoch,  the  Testaments 
of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  and  the  Apocalypse  of  Banich,  by  R.  H. 
Charles. 


INDBX  (1) 

{Supplementary  to  the  Table  of  Gonients) 


AoROSTics  (alphabetic  poems),  128, 

143, 163,  221. 
Akiba,  155. 

Altar,  laws  relatinf  to,  24,  31,  84. 
Anoki,  23,  230.    Cp.  186. 
Apocalyptic  literature,  170,  230,  233, 

237,  239,  248. 
Arabic  historians,  methods  of,  12. 
Aramaic,   documents  in  Ezra,  102, 

104. 

gloss,  177,  196. 

sections  in  Daniel,  234. 

use  of,  103. 

Aramaisms  in  Daniel,  234. 

Ecclesiastes,  163. 

Job,  117, 127. 

Jonah,  215. 

Proverbs,  147. 

Asaph,  130-133. 

Assouan  papyri,  98. 

Astruc,  19. 

Asylum,  law  of,  24,  85. 

Autobiographical  memoirs — 

of  Ezra  and  Nehemiab,  100. 

of  prophets,  169,   190,  192,  197, 
204-206,  212. 

Babylon,  Hebrew  literature  written 

in,  76. 
Babylonian  chronicle,  88. 

history,  47. 

law,  45. 

mythology  and  stories,  45,  118. 

Cp.  199. 
Balaam,  songs  of,  40. 


Baruch,  196. 

Ben  Sirach,  115,  146.  168,  176,  18a 

See  also  Ecclesiasticus. 
Bible,  arrangement  of  Hebrew,  2. 
Biography,  73,  169, 190, 197, 212. 
Book  Eeligion,  8. 

Canon,  8. 

Chronicle,  Babylonian,  83. 
Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel,  82, 
83 

* Judah,  82,  88. 

Cities  of  Refuge,  24. 

D,26. 

— —  date  of,  81. 

editions  of,  42. 

—  extent  of,  27. 

influence  of,  62,  61,  68,  77,  81. 

-^—  laws  of,  whence  derived,  42,  43. 

D«,  27,  42,  50,  58. 

David,  elegies  of,  4,  67,  166. 

psalms  of,  137-139. 

Deborah,  song  of,  61,  62. 

Deutero-Isaiah,  180. 

Deuteronomy,  chs.  iiL-vi.    See  aim 

Index  II. 
Diatessaron.    See  Tatian. 
Drama,  156-168. 
Duplicate  narratives^ 

in  Judges,  61,  62. 

Samuel,  68,  78. 

the  Pentateuch,  21,  22. 

E,26,  62,  73.    See  alto  JE, 
E?,  E«,  44,  60. 


250      CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT 


Ecclesiasticus,  2,  113,  174. 
Editors  of  the  Pentateuch,  48. 

the  earlier  historical  books,  62, 

63. 

Psalter,  130-132. 

— —  the  prophetical  books.  176,  191, 

192,  203,  206,  212,  221. 
Eleazar,  6. 

Elegies,  163,  201.     See  also  Dftvid. 
Elephantine,  papyri,  98,  104. 

Jews  of,  99,  104. 

Elihu,  speeches  of,  117, 118, 120, 124, 

245. 
Elohim,  use  of^  in  Pentateuch,  20, 

29,30. 

in  Psalter,  181, 182. 

Enoch,  book  of  2,  237. 
Eschatological  ideas,  247;  op.  177| 

187,  188. 
Esdras,  books  of,  97. 

first  book  of,  106, 107. 

Esther,  additions  to,  114. 

Exodus,  chs.  iii.  M,  See  also  Index  IL 

Ezra,  5. 

law  read  by,  86. 

FOLK-POKTBY,  161. 

Future  Life,  belief  In,  126, 127. 147, 
150. 

Gad,  6. 

Genealogies,  88,  91,  97. 

Genealogy  of  David,  87. 

Genesis,  chs.  iii. -Ti.   iS^o^  Index  II. 

Greek  words,  in  Daniel,  234. 

in  Proverbs  (?),  147. 

in  Song  of  Songs,  162. 

absence  of,  in  Esther,  118. 

in  Job,  127. 

Guilds,  literary,  144. 
of  singers,  132, 144. 

H,  41. 

Hammurabi,  code  of,  45i. 
Hasidira,  135. 
Hezatench,  27. 
Homicide,  laws  of,  34. 

IBV  EZ&A,  16, 17* 


J.  26,  62,  64.    SeecdaoJE, 
J»,  J2,  44,  49,  50. 
Jacob,  blessing  of,  46. 
Jashar,  book  of,  37,  57,  67. 
JE,  26,  58,  88. 

date  of,  32,  37,  88. 

extent  of,  28. 

laws  in,  37,  44,  45. 

Josiah,  Reformation  of,  81. 
'Judgments,'  46. 
Judith,  book  of,  2, 8, 108. 

Kino,  allusion  to,  in  Eccles.,  141 

EccluR.,  146. 

Proverbs,  145. 

Psalms,  136. 

bridal,  159-162. 

Eorah,  sons  of,  130-188. 

Law,  the,  2,  8,  18. 

Laws.    See  under  D,  JK,  P. 

conflicting,  24,  88-86,  41. 

written,  18,  49. 

Levites,  85,  40,  41,  86,  90,  91. 
Leviticus,    chs.    iiL-Ti       <Sm    als€ 
Index  II. 

MasehU,  183. 
Mesha,  inscription  of,  88. 
Michtam,  133. 
Midrash,  47,  64,  96. 

of  the  Book  of  Kings,  96. 

Migration  of  stories,  216. 
Minstrels  (or  reciters),  18,  44, 170. 
Mitmor,  138. 
Monotheism  in  Job,  126, 147. 

in  Proverbs,  147. 

Moses,  6,  6,  14-17, 19,  4& 

Blessing  of,  46. 

Song  of,  46. 

Musician,  the  chief,  188. 
Mythology,  112,  118,  216,  288,  289. 

Nambs,  diTine,  use  of,  20,  21, 29, 80. 

Nathan,  6. 

Nation,  personification  of,  140. 

Noah,  curse  of,  46. 

Numbers,  oh.  UL-iv.  3m  aZso  Index  IL 


INDEX 


251 


Obal  Basis  of  Pmitateuch,  88. 

Judges,  44,  45,  49. 

ProTerbg,  144. 

^^ of  prophetic  literature,  168- 

178. 

P,  26,  86,  88. 

date  of,  32-87. 

earlier  and  later  elements  in, 

89-41. 
•^—  extent  of,  27. 

influence  of,  62,  64,  86,  92, 126. 

Parallel    passages,    significance   of, 

126,  210,  231. 
Fusover,  law  and  practice  of,  81. 
Persian  words  in  Daniel,  234. 

Ecclesiastes,  168. 

Esther.  113. 

Song  of  Songs,  162. 

absence  of,  in  Job,  127. 

Proverbs,  147. 

Phinehas,  6. 

Poetry,  chapters  xiiL-xiz. 

-^  in  Judges,  62, 

— —  in  the  Pentateuch,  18,  46. 

.^  in  Samuel,  67. 

'~—  Popular.    See  Folk-poetry. 

Prophetic,  170,  171,  201,  204, 

211. 
Polygamy,  147. 
Priesthood,  law  of,  86. 
Priests'  blessing,  46. 
•  Prophets,  the,'  2,  8. 
^—~  narratiyes  of,  84,  89,  9L 
— —  stories  of,  215. 
Pialms  of  Darid,  129. 

of  Solomon,  2,  128, 129. 

outside  the  Psalter,  128. 

Purim,  110, 118. 

B>,60. 


Rj«i>,  60. 
Ri",  60,  68. 
Recorders,  83. 

Samaritan  Scriftubsb,  27,  61. 

Satan,  9,  92,  125,  126. 

Septuagint  (Greek  Version),  50,  64^ 
66,  76,  85,  87,  97,  108,  114,  128^ 
164, 168,  176,  182,  195, 197. 

*  Servant  Songs,'  187. 
Shaddai,  126. 
Slavery,  laws  of,  24,  86. 
Solomon,  Book  of  the  Acts  of,  82. 
Proverbs  of,  142. 

Psalms  of,  2,  128, 129. 

Susannah,  96. 

Tatian's  Diatessaront  11,  21,  22. 

Tell  el-Amarna  Tablets,  47,  67,  61. 

Temple  records,  85. 

Tithe,  laws  of,  25. 

Titles,  in  Psalter,  180-134. 

in    prophetical    books,    181, 

191. 
Tobit,  2,  8. 
Torah  (the  Law),  14. 
Tradition,  Jewish,  5, 14 1L 
Trito-Isaiah,  180. 
Twelve  Judges,  book  of  the,  64. 
Twelve   Patriarchs,    Testaments  of 

the,  2. 

Wars  op  Yahwbh,  book  of  37. 
Wisdom  Literature,  145,  148, 149. 
•Wise,  the,' 148,  152. 

•  Words '  (= commands),  46i. 
« Writings,  The,'  2,  8. 

Tahwxh,  use  of  name  in  the  Pent» 
tench,  20,  29,  30. 

in  the  Psalter,  131,  132. 

•Ta]iwehth7God,'26. 


262    CRITICAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT 


INDEX  (II) 
(0/  some  eectiona  of  Scripiure) 


Q^mOm,  L-ii  4*,  and  ii.  4»».22,  pp.  21, 
23,  25,  27. 
„       ir.  26,  p.  29. 
N       ix.  24,  25,  p.  48. 
„       xiy.,  p.  47. 
„       zzT.  23.  p.  46. 
„       xxxTi.  81-43,  p.  16. 
„       xlix.,  p.  46. 
ExoduB,  i  ii.,  p.  19,  80. 
„    '  iii.  13-15,  p.  29. 
„       ir.  10-16,  p.  28. 
„       Ti.  2,  pp.  29,  80. 
„       vi.  29-vii.  8,  p.  23. 
„       XT.  1-18.  21,  pp  46,  47. 
M       zzi.-xxiii.,  p.  25,  83,  87,  42, 
45. 
Numbers,  vi.  24-26,  p.  46. 
„        xiii.,  pp.  22,  28. 
„        xxii-xxir.,  p.  46. 
Leriticus,  xvli.-xxyi.  41. 
Denteronomj,  xxziL.,  p.  46. 
„  xxziii.,  p.  46. 

„  xxxiT.,  p.  6. 

1  Samuel  viii. ,  x,  17-24,  xii. 


vUi.,x,  17-24,  xii.) 

and  \ 

ix-x.  16,  xi  1-11. -^ 


pp.  69-71. 


2  Samuel,  z.  1-5,  pp.  4.  6. 
„       ix.-xx.,  pp.  78,  76. 
„        xxi-xziT.,  p.  74. 
,.        zziT.  1-10,  p.  9. 
1  ring.,  I  ii.,  pp.  78,  76,  88w 
1  Chroniclet,  ziz.  1-5,  p.  8. 
zzi.  1-8,  p.  9. 
Job,  i.  ii.,  pp.  115,  116,  117. 
„   lil.-zzzi.,  pp.116,117. 
„    zxTiL  7-28,  p.  122. 
„    zzTiii.,  pp.  122.  128. 
^   zxzli.-zzzTlL,  pp.  116-118,  126. 
^    xzzTiiL-xliL  8,  pp.  116,  120-122. 


Job,  zL  15-zli.  34,  p.  118. 

Isaiah,  L-ixxii.,  pp.  178-180, 182,184 

„  i.,  pp.  181,  183,  184. 

„  iL-zii.,  pp.  181-184. 

,.  ii.  2-4,  p.  188. 

H  ii.  6-19,  p.  188. 

„  iii.  l.-iv.  1,  v.,  p.  184. 

„  iv.  2-6.  p.  188. 

„  T.  26  29,  p.  183. 

„  Ti,  1-viii.  18,  p.  188, 

„  iz.  2-7,  p.  188. 

„  iz.  8-z.  4,  p.  188. 

„  z.  6-15,  p.  184. 

„  X.  27-82,  p.  184. 

„  zi.  1-8,  p.  188. 

„  zi.  9-xii.  6.  p.  187. 

„  ziii-ziiii.,  pp.  181-184. 

„  ziii.,  pp.  180,  184. 

„  ziT.  4-21,  pp.  184, 18& 

„  ZiT.  28-32,  p.  184. 

„  ZT.  zvi.,  p.  187. 

„  ZTii.  1-11,  p.  188. 

„  ZTiii.  p.  184. 

,.  ziz.  p.  187. 

„  zz.,  p.  183. 

„  zzi.  1-10,  p.  184. 

„  zzL  11-15,  p.  184. 

„  zzii  1-14.  p.  184. 

„  zzii.  15-25,  p.  184. 

„  zziii.,  p.  188. 

„  zziT.-zzTii.,  pp.  126,  127, 180- 
182, 187, 189. 

„  zzTiii-zzzi.,  pp.  181,  183, 184, 
187. 

„  zzTiii.  1-4,  p.  188. 

„  zziz.  17-24,  p.  187. 

„  zzziii.,  p.  187. 

„  zzxiT.,  zxiv.,  p.  181,1188. 

,,  zzzTi.-zzziz.  181.  183, 181 


INDEX 


253 


Isaiah,  x1.4t.  and  Iri.-lxvi.,  p.  180-  i  J«remiah,zxx.,  xxxi.,  p.  196. 


182,  184-187. 
Jeromiah,  L-zxy.,  pp.  190. 
„        Tii.  p.  190. 
^        x.  1-16,  p.  196. 
^        xviL  19-27.  p.  196. 
M        zxvi-xlT.,  pp.   190,    19^ 

195, 196. 
M        zxTii.-xxix.,  f.  181. 


xxxi.  81-34.  p.  196. 
xxxii.  17-23.  p.  196. 
xxxTi.,  pp.  172,  173, 

194. 
xlTi.-li. .  p.  190,  196. 
V,  li.,  p.  189, 
M.I  pp.  189»  1^«  192. 


19^ 


''I, 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

™s  boo.  .  d^  °/.  *^'- ^- -^«i  be.ow.  o. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


26*Gc>oiM 


iCL,w  u   Lt 


■fflnrres-^i^ 


"  [JiWb    IS/3- 


«£C'OLD    JUI^~r73-JJ/iM6  3 


LD2lA-60m-8.'65 
(r2386gl0)476B 


General  Libraiy 

Unjversity  of  California 

Berkeley 


n 


VB  ZI600 


S»B»i 


419774 

(?7 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


f''r,fi,i 


X.  '. 


^* 


